[HN Gopher] Congratulations on creating the one billionth reposi...
___________________________________________________________________
Congratulations on creating the one billionth repository on GitHub
Author : petercooper
Score : 168 points
Date : 2025-06-11 21:37 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| bitpush wrote:
| curl -s https://api.github.com/repositories/1000000000 { "id":
| 1000000000, "node_id": "R_kgDOO5rKAA", "name": "shit",
| "full_name": "AasishPokhrel/shit" }
| samgranieri wrote:
| Well shit!
| mistersquid wrote:
| Is this what folks mean by enshittification?
| arcanemachiner wrote:
| For anyone wondering, the name of the repo is literally "shit".
| Cyphase wrote:
| I'm wondering if AasishPokhrel created this repo for the purpose
| of being the billionth.
| joshdavham wrote:
| I highly doubt it, but that does sound possible.
| paxys wrote:
| It's pretty easy to game this. Just keep creating repos till
| you hit # one billion and remove the old ones. Their API makes
| it trivial. The only issue will be rate limits, so it's a
| matter of luck.
| recursive wrote:
| I don't believe they will renumber the old ones. Also, it
| can't be trivial, since two people can try this, and only one
| can win.
| handfuloflight wrote:
| There is always one trillion to look forward to!
| paxys wrote:
| I don't know if are two people in the world with
| such...interesting life goals simultaneously. But yes, like
| I said ultimately it's a matter of luck because someone can
| just randomly create this repo.
| GodelNumbering wrote:
| There was a guy who got fired from Meta for creating
| excessive automated diffs in pursuit of a certain magic
| number
| maniacalhack0r wrote:
| AasishPokhrel made 2 repos yday - shit and yep. no activity
| between may 17th and june 10th.
|
| i have no idea if its possible to calculate the rate at which
| repos are being created and time your repo creation to hit
| vanity numbers
| deadbabe wrote:
| What a waste of a repo. Can anyone find what the 999,999,999 repo
| was? So we can see what could have been?
| PenguinRevolver wrote:
| https://api.github.com/repositories/999999999
|
| Which leads to https://github.com/sameepabadhuge/fork1
| deadbabe wrote:
| That repo is substantially more fascinating, and could have
| used the attention. What a shame. Who was the next repo,
| 1,000,000,001?
| KTibow wrote:
| It doesn't exist. Turns out GitHub has a lot of private and
| deleted repos.
|
| (Then there's 1000000002,
| https://github.com/minseon-01/flaskapp, similar to
| 999999999 in that it's a fork)
| ihuman wrote:
| Right now it 404s. 1000000002 is
| https://github.com/minseon-01/flaskapp
| levocardia wrote:
| >Repo 999999999: pushing forward the cutting edge of protein
| folding research
|
| >Repo 1000000000: shit
| TZubiri wrote:
| The duality of programming
| SalariedSlave wrote:
| So the count includes forks?
|
| Would be interesting to know the billionth non-fork source
| repo.
| fHr wrote:
| repo named shit LMFAO nice
| joshdavham wrote:
| This is actually incredible.
| umanwizard wrote:
| On a serious note, I'm a bit surprised that GitHub makes it
| trivial to compute the rate at which new repositories are
| created. Isn't that kind of information usually a corporate
| secret?
| raincole wrote:
| Is there any reason for GitHub to hide this information though?
| How could it be used against them?
|
| (I understand many companies default to not expose any
| information unless forced otherwise.)
| toast0 wrote:
| The rate of creation is like meh, but being able to enumerate
| all of the repos might be problematic, following new repos
| and scanning them for leaked credentials could be a
| negative... but github may have a feed of new repos anyway?
|
| Also, having a sequence implies at least a global lock on
| that sequence during repo creation. Repo creation could
| otherwise be a scoped lock. OTOH, it's not necessarily
| handled that way --- they could hand out ranges of sequences
| to different servers/regions and the repo id may not be
| actually sequential.
| cheschire wrote:
| When your moat is a billion wide, you tend to walk around in
| your underwear a bit more I guess.
| 90s_dev wrote:
| Excellent Diogenes quote reference.
| jaynate wrote:
| The repo three comma club
| badc0ffee wrote:
| Tres commas
| cheschire wrote:
| Commits that go like \o/ this.
| 9dev wrote:
| Sigh. You can't make that shit up. I'm sure there's a witty
| metaphor in there, somewhere...
| 8organicbits wrote:
| While we are doing cool GitHub repo IDs, the first is here:
|
| https://api.github.com/repositories/1
|
| https://github.com/mojombo/grit
| Aachen wrote:
| Makes me wonder how many repositories exist in general, from all
| the local Forgejo and Gitlab servers. Heck, include Subversion
| and Mercurial and git's other friends (and foes!)
|
| Did anyone make a search engine for these yet, so we'd be able to
| get an estimate by searching for the word "a" or so?
|
| (This always seemed like the big upside of centralised GitHub to
| me: people can actually find your code. I've been thinking of
| making a search since MS bought HG but didn't think I could do
| the marketing aspects and so it would be a waste of effort and I
| never did it. Recently I was considering whether this would be
| worth revisiting, with the various projects I'm putting on
| Codeberg, but maybe someone beat me to the punch)
| 90s_dev wrote:
| This is either staged,
|
| or incredible commentary on _most github repos_ ,
|
| having no purpose, never being realized, and even having given up
| _dreaming_.
| caleblloyd wrote:
| Awesome! Only a little over a billion more to go before GitHub's
| very own OpenAPI Spec can start overflowing int32 on repositories
| too, just like it already does for workflows run IDs!
|
| https://github.com/github/rest-api-description/issues/4511
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-11 23:00 UTC)