I have the feeling that this is happening more and more these days. And it's a mayor problem when a large part of your infrastructure is depending on services like Github (composer, etc.)
It's kind of ironic when one realizes that one of the major design goals of git was to be distributed, to reduce dependency on a single point of failure.
GitHub isn't really a single point of failure. You could easily keep working on your branches and/or forks and re-sync once the server is back up.
It's kind of ironic when one realizes that one of the major design goals of git was to be distributed, to reduce dependency on a single point of failure.
GitHub isn't really a single point of failure. You could easily keep working on your branches and/or forks and re-sync once the server is back up.
That's definitely true, but PRs, comments and bug reports are not distributed, nor are many bridges between Github and external tools (issue trackers like JIRA/Trello, build-servers). This might seem pedantic, but it creates an asymmetry: commits and branches distributed, as opposed to PRs and comments.
GitHub isn't really a single point of failure. You could easily keep working on your branches and/or forks and re-sync once the server is back up.
That's definitely true, but PRs, comments and bug reports are not distributed, nor are many bridges between Github and external tools (issue trackers like JIRA/Trello, build-servers). This might seem pedantic, but it creates an asymmetry: commits and branches distributed, as opposed to PRs and comments.
Fossil[1] is a distributed scm with a distributed bug tracker, and distributed wiki.