zlacker

It's not marked as a fork in their systems. Instead, it's as if you'd written a bunch of code in a local repository and then pushed it to GitHub.

It could still be identified as the same codebase by eg. comparing commit hashes or content hashes, but that's harder. If you really want to be sure, clone the repository, make a few local edits to files (eg. adding a comment to each file), copy the full source repository to a new directory in the filesystem, git init that as a new repository, commit changes, and push. That blows away all the existing history of commits, and ensures that each file has a different hash. It's still technically possible to detect it as a dupe, but would require an extremely expensive shingling or filesystem diff on every repository in GitHub.

>>nostra+(OP)
Find the first commit and overwrite it :P

>>aaomid+Ee
That could still be fairly easily detected by looking at the tree and blob ids.

>>aaomid+Ee
I never use squash but couldn't you squash all the commits into a new one for a new history?

>>nostra+(OP)
> It's still technically possible to detect it as a dupe, but would require an extremely expensive shingling or filesystem diff on every repository in GitHub.

Wouldn't a GitHub search still find it pretty easily? As I understand it, they put significant effort into supporting search; but since that's being done anyway, it doesn't have a very high marginal cost.