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

GitHub was having issues

githubstatus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 96 posts

Re: GitHub was having issues

#21

Post by rapnie »

Kiro wrote: post #3

OT but why did it capitalize the title like that? I submitted "GitHub is having issues". I don't see that for other submissions (unless people manually edit them afterwards). EDIT: Before the change to "GitHub was having issues" it had converted my original submission from "GitHub is having issues" to "GitHub Is Having Issues".

There are some rules for when this happens and when it does not. Don't know what they are exactly. Maybe the camelcase in GitHub may have triggered. Anyway, as you say, afterwards you can edit the title and give the desired case format.

Re: GitHub was having issues

#22

Post by dottedmag »

rvz wrote: post #5

Here we go again [0] and again [1] and again [2] and again [3]. Time to reset the counter once again. Now everything there is degraded performance. Oh dear. Consider a self-hosted alternative or have one as a backup like I have said before. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27192869 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27172443 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26666843 [3] https://news.ycombinator.…

Is there anything at in the same league as https://reviewable.io for code reviews on self-hosted Git?

Re: GitHub was having issues

#23

Post by nikotom »

Kiro wrote: post #3

OT but why did it capitalize the title like that? I submitted "GitHub is having issues". I don't see that for other submissions (unless people manually edit them afterwards). EDIT: Before the change to "GitHub was having issues" it had converted my original submission from "GitHub is having issues" to "GitHub Is Having Issues".

From what I can tell from looking at older submissions, it might be doing it if the title is 4 words or less. Not sure why that would be the case though..

Re: GitHub was having issues

#24

Post by capableweb »

ljm wrote: post #15
Tainnor wrote: post #8

Maybe these are just a bunch of coincidences, but I have a feeling that GitHub is being poorly run recently. Apart from quite frequent uptime issues, it seems that Github Actions is pretty half-baked and they completely botched the migration of Dependabot (for example, take a look at this issue and especially, how it was handled: https://github.com/dependabot/dependabot-core/issues/3253 )

A shame they removed all their uptime graphs on the status page, since it's much harder to get a read on things now. However, scrolling back through the status page's history for the last year shows that there between 6 and 12 incidents every month, and it often hovers at the high end of that range. That has to be an utter misery for anyone who's on call.

> A shame they removed all their uptime graphs on the status page, since it's much harder to get a read on things now.

I've started using that (uptime/performance/latency graphs being removed from status pages) as a signal to for when companies feel embarrassed over their quality of service but don't have enough interest/resources/profits to fix it.

Re: GitHub was having issues

#25

Post by jbverschoor »

nikotom wrote: post #23
Kiro wrote: post #3

OT but why did it capitalize the title like that? I submitted "GitHub is having issues". I don't see that for other submissions (unless people manually edit them afterwards). EDIT: Before the change to "GitHub was having issues" it had converted my original submission from "GitHub is having issues" to "GitHub Is Having Issues".

From what I can tell from looking at older submissions, it might be doing it if the title is 4 words or less. Not sure why that would be the case though..

Too much smarts in the wrong places imo..

Re: GitHub was having issues

#26

Post by gjulianm »

thinkindie wrote: post #13
rvz wrote: post #5

Here we go again [0] and again [1] and again [2] and again [3]. Time to reset the counter once again. Now everything there is degraded performance. Oh dear. Consider a self-hosted alternative or have one as a backup like I have said before. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27192869 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27172443 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26666843 [3] https://news.ycombinator.…

self hosted won't insulate you from your VCS instance failing. I used to work at a medium-sized company with Gitlab 8 years ago, it was running into several issues and required frequent maintenance.

To give another data point, in my company we're running Gitlab (we started 3,4 years ago maybe?) with some pretty heavy use of CI and we've had no issues, even with automatic upgrades enabled (we have tested backups, we're not crazy).

Re: GitHub was having issues

#27

Post by meibo »

dijit wrote: post #12
rvz wrote: post #5

Here we go again [0] and again [1] and again [2] and again [3]. Time to reset the counter once again. Now everything there is degraded performance. Oh dear. Consider a self-hosted alternative or have one as a backup like I have said before. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27192869 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27172443 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26666843 [3] https://news.ycombinator.…

Cue the age old argument chain about outsourcing responsibility vs having control of downtimes. I’m tired of them now, anyone using hosted solutions should know this by now and they’ve made that choice. Personally I believe people underestimate how easy it is to host your own services. But I’m sick of having the conversation over and over, if people aren’t willing to investigate then, what’s the saying: “you can lead…

GitHub also arguably just has a good product that's a good fit for a lot of use-cases, regardless of if there's better options.

Yeah, you might be able to self-host gitlab/gitea/etc but their free offering for organizations is so good that for my 30 commits/week open source project, I can deal with half an hour of downtime once in a while.

Combined with free hosting, it's really not that much of a stretch that people are willing to put up with this, especially as there have been periods of time with less outages before, though that's been a while now.

Re: GitHub was having issues

#28

Post by toomanybeersies »

rvz wrote: post #5

Here we go again [0] and again [1] and again [2] and again [3]. Time to reset the counter once again. Now everything there is degraded performance. Oh dear. Consider a self-hosted alternative or have one as a backup like I have said before. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27192869 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27172443 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26666843 [3] https://news.ycombinator.…

> Consider self-hosted alternatives like I have said before.

This assumes that your self-hosted Git service will have better uptime than Github.

Re: GitHub was having issues

#29

Post by input_sh »

nik736 wrote: post #4

What's the reason these Git services have so many issues all the time?

> We have discovered the source of the errors and have just rolled out a potential fix. We are now monitoring recovery and will update soon.

Looks like some code issue from their side.

Re: GitHub was having issues

#30

Post by hughrr »

beermonster wrote: post #6

For people using GitHub Actions how often do these types of incidents impact your CI/CD?

All the time. It’s not even that reliable when it’s up. Total embarrassment for us when we have to explain to management.

If I started again I’d probably use something standalone, light weight and 100% self hosted ie GoCD. I’d change the operating model to keep GitHub as a collaboration place but not have any dependencies on it for pipeline. We have other issues as well like the GitHub flow mod being inadequate for maintaining stability on high traffic repos too. I’d pull from master into a production branch and run that off line entirely.

Post reply on HN