Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Project incorrectly flagged as bugfix fork #405

Closed
mattyr opened this issue Jan 28, 2019 · 4 comments
Closed

Project incorrectly flagged as bugfix fork #405

mattyr opened this issue Jan 28, 2019 · 4 comments

Comments

@mattyr
Copy link

mattyr commented Jan 28, 2019

https://www.ruby-toolbox.com/projects/sidecloq appears to be incorrectly flagged as a bugfix fork of sidetiq; it is not (I'm the creator). Reporting per https://www.ruby-toolbox.com/pages/docs/features/bugfix_forks -- let me know if more info is needed!

@colszowka
Copy link
Member

colszowka commented Jan 29, 2019

Hey @mattyr, thanks for reporting this! The culprit is the 100% equal gem description Recurring jobs for Sidekiq with sidetiq, which then gets the "main project" flag due to it's higher download count.

A quick fix you could do would be to simply adjust your gem's description to have different wording, but I'll also investigate expanding the description matching to the gem's other metadata. The assumption for the description equality fork detection is that forked gems rarely see changes to their gemspec metadata, so finding them by description worked well for the gems I inspected. I will look into this in the next week or so.

Just for reference so it's also linked from the original PR that introduced the changes: #377

@mattyr
Copy link
Author

mattyr commented Jan 29, 2019

Thanks, and I can see there certainly is some merit in trying that description-driven approach.

I can alter the description for now; if there's additional info/help I can provide, let me know!

@colszowka
Copy link
Member

Excellent, thanks @mattyr! Let's leave this issue open though so I don't forget to look more closely into potentially expanding the existing approach into other gem data, your gem likely isn't the only one that will run into this problem

mattyr added a commit to mattyr/sidecloq that referenced this issue Jan 29, 2019
@colszowka
Copy link
Member

Haven't received any further reports of this in over a year, so I'm just gonna close this one as it generally doesn't seem to be a big issue

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants