Can confirm. I almost go crazy a few minutes ago when I pushed some commits and couldn't see them appearing in the Pull Requests
GitHub was having issues
41–50 of 96 posts
Re: GitHub was having issues
#42For people using GitHub Actions how often do these types of incidents impact your CI/CD?
Very rarely, and (so far) not in any meaningful way. Having to wait a few hours for a CI process isn't a problem 99% of the time. Deploys are affected by issues on AWS and Azure far more often than GH in my experience.
I'd probably change my mind if I ever get unlucky enough to need to deploy a critical hotfix at the same time GH is unavailable though.
Re: GitHub was having issues
#43Here 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.
Not even that necessarily, control of downtime is also worth something. i.e. lots of downtime is tied to system changes/updates, especially in a conservative setup, which you can schedule as appropriate on a self-hosted setup.
Re: GitHub was having issues
#44Here 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.
Someone said the same thing to me more than a year ago [0] and here we are the same issues once again.
This is why it makes no sense to go 'all in' or try to "centralize everything to GitHub". At least (if you're a company or an organisation) have a self-hosted backup and don't jump into the 'goin all in' hype train.
Re: GitHub was having issues
#45What's the reason these Git services have so many issues all the time?
Aren't these pretty heavy duty and any issue sticks very prominently ? A ton of companies are using these tools literally 24/7, at most of my jobs Github/Gitlab being down meant most of us would just be spending half of our time faking working (rare are the people who could just do "offline" dev for half a day without any external input/output) Slack could be down it had less impact overall.
You could use that downtime to learn about the variety of ways that git natively supports distributed workflows [1]
[1] https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Distributed-Git-Distributed-W...
Re: GitHub was having issues
#46What's the reason these Git services have so many issues all the time?
possibly Azure?
As far as I know GitHub doesn't use Azure at all, I think it's still hosted by Carpathia. https://github.com/holman/ama/issues/553
Re: GitHub was having issues
#47OT 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".
It is title case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_case
[deleted]
Re: GitHub was having issues
#48Here 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.
Well going all in on GitHub / GitHub Actions now really sounds like a bad idea. Even some others had issues [0] and had no external backup plan to counter GitHub's regular outages.
The best example to learn from is ReactOS who while has moved to GitHub they at least have a self-hosted backup just in case GitHub falls over. [1]
For the ones who are not on GitHub and are self-hosting (OpenBSD, Mozilla, Linux Kernel Project, GNOME, xfce, wireguard) I don't hear any complaints from them.
Re: GitHub was having issues
#49Does it affect self-hosted runners as well?
We're looking at switching to self-hosted runners, so I'd be very interested in hearing if it would shield us from some of Github downtime.
We're also looking into Github enterprise for the IP allowlist feature which unfortunately means we'll have to migrate our whole CI/CD to self-hosted since Github-hosted runners don't work with this feature enabled.
Re: GitHub was having issues
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Consider self-hosted alternatives like I have said before. This assumes that your self-hosted Git service will have better uptime than Github.
Someone said the same thing to me more than a year ago [0] and here we are the same issues once again. This is why it makes no sense to go 'all in' or try to "centralize everything to GitHub". At least (if you're a company or an organisation) have a self-hosted backup and don't jump into the 'goin all in' hype train. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22868406
> This is why it makes no sense to go 'all in'...
I completely agree with you, to reiterate what I said last time we had this discussion 3 months ago:
> I wouldn't call it prudent to go all-in on any cloud service [0]
I've never used Github as anything more than a managed git service with a nice web interface. At work, any time the topic of moving our CI/wiki/project management/issue tracking onto GitHub has come up, I've been vocally opposed.
If GitHub went down, and didn't come back up, it would be trivial to migrate to Gitlab/CodeCommit/Bitbucket. The most time consuming thing would be setting up new web hooks for our CI.