Repository navigation
Detach old upstream #2489
Description
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Dear @Open-Shell team, @XenHat, @ge0rdi, @coddec, @Ibuprophen, @bonzibudd,
Can you detach the upstream repository from the original fork place: https://github.com/coddec/Classic-Shell?
The goal is to have the main source code in your account:
The upstream is very old, obsolete since 2018-09-06 (more 8 years soon).
Contributors will be shown in project, etc.
Thanks in advance.
Describe the solution you'd like
^
Area of issue
Installation/Other
Alternatives you've considered
No response
Additional context
No response
Reacted by Michael21107
Reacted by Ibuprophen
Activity
ge0rdi commentedon Jun 22, 2026
What would be the purpose of it?
Is there a problem with current setup?
Ibuprophen commentedon Jun 22, 2026
Though I do understand the request (as it's currently considered a fork), but I don't see the harm in keeping it a fork with the original development.
~Ibuprophen
XenHat commentedon Jun 22, 2026
I believe that keeping canonical and historical credit matters more than some arbitrary concept of tidiness.
As a pretty opinionated FOSS supporter, I especially perceive the current request as an antithesis of what this project is trying to do, which is to continue the legacy of a third-party menu replacement with the blessings of the original author.
I may not be a windows platform developer anymore, but as a primary co-founder, I strongly oppose identity death.
Neustradamus commentedon Jun 23, 2026
@XenHat: For example, you can see that "Contributors" are not listed at right.
Several projects have done it with success.
For example, you can see here, it has been done with success:
Another solution, it is to archive this current repository, and to update the upstream and to move the upstream in this organization.
NOTE: In the README, there is already:
But it is possible to add one link in more in the README, for example:
Michael21107 commentedon Jun 23, 2026
@coddec Closed as completed? This proposal has not been completed.
Ibuprophen commentedon Jun 23, 2026
Keeping the development forked does not affect this development at all. It just provides a source of where this development originated from as a reference.
I believe that this question was asked and answered. :-))
~Ibuprophen
Michael21107 commentedon Jun 23, 2026
@Ibuprophen It was a feature request, though. Denied feature requests should be closed as not planned.
Neustradamus commentedon Jun 23, 2026
I think that the team does not understand the request.
The request is to detach this fork from the old upstream which is very old, obsolete since 2018-09-06 (more 8 years soon).
For example, it will permit to see contributors at right of this repository.
A lot of repositories have removed an old upstream, and it is now perfect...
coddec commentedon Jun 23, 2026
Will archive the other one, thanks
Neustradamus commentedon Jun 23, 2026
@coddec: To be perfect, two operations will be needed, to archive the old upstream and to detach.
Like I have specified in a previous comment, you can add in the README that Classic Shell:
A change can be done on Sourceforge too about the migration to GitHub.
XenHat commentedon Jun 24, 2026
So what you're saying is, the GitHub UI won't show some elements if the repository is a fork?
Besides a cosmetic quirk, I see little reasons.
I'm not fundamentally against the proposal as long as attribution is preserved, but the wording is a bit strange.
"Detach upstream" as the preamble gives me cause for concern.
I'd like a more detailed explanation of the problem you're trying to fix before we change anything.
Neustradamus commentedon Jun 25, 2026
@XenHat: The term is to detach the upstream.
All forks are limited yes...
It takes two minutes to send a message to GitHub like it is specified at top...
And there will be no problem to Open-Shell-Menu forks to add a PR in the good upstream (here) too.
Important: All the commits are always here in this repository.
Neustradamus commentedon Jun 30, 2026
Dear @Open-Shell team, @XenHat, @ge0rdi, @coddec, @Ibuprophen, @bonzibudd,
Can you reopen this ticket?
It has not been solved.
Michael21107 commentedon Jun 30, 2026
@Neustradamus Well, it is a suggestion that has been denied, and the proper process to do that is to close the issue as not planned, which has been done.
Although I must say that I don't see a legit reason to deny it, and that, in my opinion, keeping a fork attached has nothing to do with crediting, and provides no benefits once the parent (upstream) is abandoned.