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

181–190 of 198 posts

Re: GitHub down

#181

Post by apple4ever »

dx034 wrote: post #88
rplnt wrote: post #74

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 bein…

Isn't Gitlab at least as hip as Github?

GitLab is actually better than GitHub, and not just because it can be self hosted.

Re: GitHub down

#182

Post by apple4ever »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #156
bobcallme wrote: post #64

This is why it pays to host your own source repositories. It is kind of shocking that many people with the skills and means are too cheap to host their own. I personally could not risk github deleting my repositories or (in this case) going down for any length of time.

You seem to be assuming that your self-hosted git will be more bullet-proof than GitHub. It probably won't be. You'll probably have fewer nines than they do; it's their business, after all. Even if your own solution had better uptime, you still haven't shown that it's worth it. GitHub is far more than just a git repo on a server.

First, yes it is more bullet-proof. We had 100% uptime last year with our GitLab.

Second, it is completely worth it. GitLab is better than GitHub, so that definitely makes it worth it.

Re: GitHub down

#183

Post by apple4ever »

lykr0n wrote: post #89
dorfsmay wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Setting up your own instance of a bit server is free. If you want issues, CI etc... Then you need a local version of github which you will pay for.

Or GitLab. That's free and easy to self host.

Bingo. People think its hard to self host. Its not. They have an omnipackage that you install. You run updates. You enable the automatic backups. Problem solved!

Re: GitHub down

#184

Post by mmahmad »

golergka wrote: post #51
nezza-_- wrote: post #2

We centralized a decentralized version control system.

Am I the only one who has project's mirror on Gitlab for exactly this purpose?

I'm curious as to how you manage the mirror. Do you perform all operations twice (e.g. if you push to Github, do you manually push to Gitlab)?

Edit: Nvm, found out Gitlab has the mirroring feature (https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/repository_mirroring.htm...). Pretty cool!

Re: GitHub down

#185

Post by jamessb »

anowlcalledjosh wrote: post #168
james33 wrote: post #78

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.

Yes, I noticed that too. I wonder when the charts got removed.

The Wayback Machine suggests it was 13th September 2017: [1] (from 17:50:53 GMT) has graphs, but [2] (from 20:06:33 GMT) is a 302 redirect to the messages page.

[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20170913175053/https://status.gi...

[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20170913200633/https://status.gi...

Re: GitHub down

#186

Post by zbentley »

knownothing wrote: post #166
zbentley wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my reply to nik736's comment in this subthread: bitbucket.org is just Atlassian's copy of BitBucket, which you can buy from them and hose yourself. EDIT: I meant "host", not "hose", but given some of my experience sysadminning Atlassian products, the sentence may still be correct.

> bitbucket.org is just Atlassian's copy of BitBucket, which you can buy from them and hose yourself. This is incorrect. Bitbucket Cloud and Server are two completely separate codebases. On the other hand, GitHub Enterprise is basically a snapshot of the production GitHub application.

Interesting, thanks for the info. I had assumed BitBucket cloud was a selected distribution of mostly the same components as BitBucket Server, plus a few proprietary things they don't sell in the hosted version.

Re: GitHub down

#188

Post by lykr0n »

apple4ever wrote: post #183
lykr0n wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or GitLab. That's free and easy to self host.

Bingo. People think its hard to self host. Its not. They have an omnipackage that you install. You run updates. You enable the automatic backups. Problem solved!

But maintenance is where people can have issues. GitLab is complex.

Re: GitHub down

#189

Post by knownothing »

zbentley wrote: post #186
knownothing wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> bitbucket.org is just Atlassian's copy of BitBucket, which you can buy from them and hose yourself. This is incorrect. Bitbucket Cloud and Server are two completely separate codebases. On the other hand, GitHub Enterprise is basically a snapshot of the production GitHub application.

Interesting, thanks for the info. I had assumed BitBucket cloud was a selected distribution of mostly the same components as BitBucket Server, plus a few proprietary things they don't sell in the hosted version.

No problem. Atlassian actually acquired Bitbucket in 2010 and then released Stash (later rebranded as Bitbucket Server) in 2012.

Re: GitHub down

#190

Post by scott_karana »

neosavvy wrote: post #76
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.

If you can't merge to master decentrally, that's not Git's fault.
Post reply on HN