111–120 of 446 posts
Have there ever been a comprehensive account from a GitHub insider on why their reliability tanked so hard since the MSFT acquisition? I'm genuinely curious what changed, what their processes are and how they internally think about their reputation being in the gutter with all these incidents.
This seems persistent and endemic, have they said anything about why it's been so bad and what they are going to doing to improve going forward?
any 9s left?
Given the recent history of outages, I wonder how many are seriously considering moving off GitHub for anything other than code hosting. I mean actions / workflows.
To offer a data point (not a tribalist argument): GitHub Actions being down this often is still less expensive than the cost of switching everything somewhere else. Would rather have my team walk away from the PRs and do other tasks than have engineering effort, meetings, design pages, scheduling, etc. for switching over. This is annoying and I'm here because it's down. But it would have to be far worse to come close…
Self-hosting is king.
Except anything I'd self host would be down much more often. I've hardly ever actually experienced down time issues with github when I needed it.
Given the recent history of outages, I wonder how many are seriously considering moving off GitHub for anything other than code hosting. I mean actions / workflows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe Pages uses Actions under the hood for publishing, so in my head it sort of makes sense for these things to be affected in the same outage
You are right, didn’t know that. Seems like the only reliable way to run GHA jobs is to not use their runners. Hope they at least didn’t break self-hosted runners operations
> Customers using self-hosted runners may see errors or rate limiting when runners register.