> just the fact I had a working github repos was enough to impress the hiring guys.
as opposed to a non-working repo? do you mean the code in it "worked" or just that you had repos up?
ANECDOTE TIME: I knew of a guy who was hired because his github profile page showed a lot of stars. It didn't dawn on them until after he was hired that those are things that he starred, not stars received for his projects. He had "a lot of repos". Cursory inspection showed all but 2 (of the 40+) were forked. He was a horrible hire, and left after a few months, but the dept manager who'd hired him (against input from some of the team) got uber-defensive about any criticism (this person was in way over their head from a tech and management standpoint) and... multiple people (surprisingly, anyone who'd made any criticism of the 'mr github stars' profile) ended up getting 'reduced' (laid off) a couple months later.
as opposed to a non-working repo? do you mean the code in it "worked" or just that you had repos up?
ANECDOTE TIME: I knew of a guy who was hired because his github profile page showed a lot of stars. It didn't dawn on them until after he was hired that those are things that he starred, not stars received for his projects. He had "a lot of repos". Cursory inspection showed all but 2 (of the 40+) were forked. He was a horrible hire, and left after a few months, but the dept manager who'd hired him (against input from some of the team) got uber-defensive about any criticism (this person was in way over their head from a tech and management standpoint) and... multiple people (surprisingly, anyone who'd made any criticism of the 'mr github stars' profile) ended up getting 'reduced' (laid off) a couple months later.