[MaulingMonkey]

> Frankly I think this posting of github pages instead of the authorative source is inappropriate

The website is the authorative source of... what, exactly? Not the codebase, not the documentation - neither of those things are on there. The only piece of content is a stealth link - and I'm not alone in having missed it, and only found out about it via the comments. "Did it get HNed...?" I wonder if the link would've been more obvious on desktop, where I might've hovered over the icon with my cursor.

I see linking github pages as more along the lines of e.g. deep linking specific developer.apple.com pages. This has always been how the web was designed to work - link directly to the useful information. If you want the authoritative source readily available, link back to your authoritative website via your readme.md, so everything's nice and cross-referenced (as I note they have.)

> I see it a lot on HN and find myself having to check that this is the official repo by going to the original website.

Ahh - just because you're on an official-looking website doesn't mean you're on the official website. You could easily be looking at e.g. a community fork of a project, possibly renamed, instead. Linking to a website doesn't actually solve this problem. That github links encourage you to look at the wider ecosystem might even be a feature... ;)