For me, I'm not coming at it from a "trying to insulate people from git" discussion as much as a "how to do this in a manner that conserves spoons". Deleting and re-forking on GitHub is fairly easy, true, and as you mention they would have knowledge of the forking part of it anyway. In fact, I've been going back-and-forth in my mind about how necessary the separate script is myself (vs. manually deleting and re-forking if you need to do that).
Certainly, I think more discussion is needed on this. I've given an overview of where I personally am coming from in a previous comment, and while nuking/re-forking is definitely destructive and not what most people would recommend, I think that it does have its advantages. Is it the best option? I'm still not entirely sure, but I'm leaning towards "Yes". (As a separate optional script, like I say.)
no subject
For me, I'm not coming at it from a "trying to insulate people from git" discussion as much as a "how to do this in a manner that conserves spoons". Deleting and re-forking on GitHub is fairly easy, true, and as you mention they would have knowledge of the forking part of it anyway. In fact, I've been going back-and-forth in my mind about how necessary the separate script is myself (vs. manually deleting and re-forking if you need to do that).
Certainly, I think more discussion is needed on this. I've given an overview of where I personally am coming from in a previous comment, and while nuking/re-forking is definitely destructive and not what most people would recommend, I think that it does have its advantages. Is it the best option? I'm still not entirely sure, but I'm leaning towards "Yes". (As a separate optional script, like I say.)