<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>damncabbage</author><text>&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  Forks are almost to easy to create. Forks get created 
  constantly and go no where.

  ...

  I would love if GitHub supported a model where if I 
  forked a repo at a version and made no changes, it 
  treated it like a private repo. It shouldn’t be visible 
  to anyone except me (unless someone hits the url 
  directly) until I push my first commit that is different 
  than the upstream. At that point it should flip to 
  public. This would clean up some of the fork soup we see 
  on pages.
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;
My misgivings with the &quot;root repo&quot; aspect of this post aside, this suggestion is great; I&apos;d really love to see this picked up by the GitHub guys.&lt;p&gt;(As mentioned in one of the post&apos;s comments, some popular projects have a &lt;i&gt;lot&lt;/i&gt; of empty forks, which makes viewing one of their Network screens an absolute nightmare to browse when looking for active forks.)</text><parent_chain></parent_chain></comment><story><title>GitHub forking has one big flaw</title><url>http://zbowling.github.com/blog/2011/11/25/github/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>k33n</author><text>What&apos;s with people declaring things they don&apos;t like, or could be improved as &quot;broken&quot;? GitHub&apos;s forking is not &quot;horribly broken&quot;. I like the ideas in this article, but they are just that: ideas.</text><parent_chain></parent_chain></comment><story><title>GitHub forking has one big flaw</title><url>http://zbowling.github.com/blog/2011/11/25/github/</url></story>