Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

3
  • 7
    Forks take a lot more work to update than clones. A clone can be updated with a simple git pull. A fork takes multiple commands. And not surprising, nearly every fork I look at is out-of-date. Forks are like the Maven repository problem on steroids. Instead of one out of date repo (Maven), there's thousands of them (Git).
    – jww
    Commented Feb 12, 2017 at 6:13
  • 2
    @jww sounds like its best to just stick with clone - why use fork then ?
    – serup
    Commented Jan 16, 2019 at 11:55
  • 2
    @serup - the reason being is the forked copy can be git pulled in so there is still some sort of relationship that exists. If you cloned the entire copy its sitting on your own local machine and disconnected from the original repo.
    – JonH
    Commented Feb 8, 2019 at 16:34