Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitHub down

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 198 posts

Re: GitHub down

#71

Post by neosavvy »

dx034 wrote: post #56
scoot wrote: post #45

Apparently the status has been "red" every day since December 1st: https://status.github.com/messages/2017-12-07 "The status is still red at the beginning of the day" Yesterday was the first "normal" day, before this outage.

That was different before. They likely changed some historic data when they put the current issue online. Probably just pushed out a quick update.

Yeah I bet these guys will have this fixed in no time. If you manage your own instance you are bound to have a less entertaining landing page when it breaks.

I've worked on numerous enterprise git servers - they all inevitably go down for at least a half day every 6-9 months.

Re: GitHub down

#72

Post by hashkb »

chrisseaton wrote: post #50
vuldin wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that the features we use along with git, many of which github provides, are not decentralized. The true but tired argument that git will continue to work when github goes down totally ignores this issue. Yes, git still works. But we don't just rely on the features git provides.

So this isn't really anything to do with Git then is it? So why joke we centralised Git when really we centralised a bunch of other things that are not really anything to do with Git?

Because we also centralized git.

Re: GitHub down

#74

Post by rplnt »

While I kind of hate Atlassian products (bloated, horrible APIs), and Bitbucket has some serious UX problems (Find), it's still better than have your repos be offline.

There's not much that can go wrong on a single instance with a local database. Have a failover in case the HW fails and you are good to go, and it's faster. The pricing is not great, but perhaps that's something GitLab can solve.

But being hip and being lean (even if it costs more) is more important I guess.

Re: GitHub down

#75

Post by d4nyll »

scoot wrote: post #45

Apparently the status has been "red" every day since December 1st: https://status.github.com/messages/2017-12-07 "The status is still red at the beginning of the day" Yesterday was the first "normal" day, before this outage.

The status page is broken, it was mostly green 10 minutes ago.

Re: GitHub down

#76

Post by neosavvy »

lihes wrote: post #23

That's the moment when you know why you're using a decentralized version control system. You don't care about the central server.

Until you need to PR a change to get it to production.

Re: GitHub down

#77

Post by hashkb »

runeks wrote: post #39
nezza-_- wrote: post #2

We centralized a decentralized version control system.

So you’re saying that if I put up my own Git server (for a fee), it’s likely to have better uptime statistics than GitHub? I can’t push changes to the decentralized Git protocol, only to a (centralized) server instance.

You can email patches. This is now the Linux team works.

Re: GitHub down

#78

Post by james33 »

Is it just me or is the new GitHub Status page a joke? It used to show historical charts for uptime and latency for each of the different services, which was actually useful. Now it is just a daily messages list.

Re: GitHub down

#79

Post by karlmcguire »

drdaeman wrote: post #66
coding123 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you just did.

No. We need a proper whitepaper explaining how to make GitHub decentralized with blockchain tokenization using distributed smart-contracts. ;) (Did I forget any important buzzword?)

Just don't host it on Github Pages.
Post reply on HN