621–630 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apologies if you already tried this, but I have been able to merge and get some things done via command line. e.g.: gh pr merge 5062 -R --squash --delete-branch
I was also able to merge a pr and do a release using cli. I'm going to leave them alone for the rest of the day.
Help encourage alternatives by trying Gitlab.com or Codeberg.org or Tangled.org or others, and please star some projects there to help motivate more options. Self-promo links below if you would like to star a few of mine good for developers. https://gitlab.com/architecture-decision-record https://gitlab.com/ways-of-working https://gitlab.com/coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure
Codeberg isn't a viable infrastructure alternative. Its an opinionated community not a neutral host as they will delete repos based off subjective opinions on LLM usage and resource consumption. If continued hosting is dependent on moderators deciding if a project fits whatever the current philosophy is, and the whims of the moderation team, then I cannot consider it a serious choice for infrastructure. Infrastructur…
Infrastructure can never be neutral, because infrastructure is owned and costs resources to run. All infrastructure comes with rules, be they the voting consensus of some e.V. or state-run entity, the whims of an individual on their private server, or the corporate interests of something owned by a, well, corporation.
The problem isn't "neutral infrastructure". The problem is an overreliance on centralized services even though most such services are relatively easy to host yourself.
I run my own DevOps server based entirely on OSS. Is it github? No. Does it what I need it to do? Absolutely. Do I get 99.999% uptime? No, but when it's down or slow, I can fix it. When the corporate platform is down, I can only wait.
And "network effects" are not a good argument. Open Source was wildly successful long before centraliced DevOps platforms.
And in hindsight, the added friction of getting in touch with projects before being able to send them any code, was a benefit not a disadvantage. Because it acted as a barrier of entry that disincentivized alot of subpar code from hitting these projects in the first place.
It is not working at all, I can not load any repo pages. Github.com's promise is that it can be the central broker of open source code because it is reliable. That promise hasn't been kept recently. That said, Github is hard to displace and it is similar to the era of the Twitter Fail Whales. It was a sign of growth that couldn't be properly managed but there was not viable alternative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft executives have an incentive to pretend that AI is great and scaling it has no problems
I recently analyzed my commit history. Last month, I made more commits than my entire 2025 combined.
But that discards my point, which is that you should probably have been prevented from pushing all those to github unless you were paying them for it, but you weren't because the executives running github can't admit that AI is bad for their platform.
To everyone who is angry: calm down. Github’s servers are constantly on fire as their usage increased something like 50x due to LLM sloppers pushing large amounts of trash code Unless you have a emergency hotfix (you don’t), go hit the gym or walk outside. If a work tool going down triggers you enough mentally to start angrily ranting online, it’s a sign you need to chill out and focus more on your health
Agreed. This impatience culture is so toxic. Been down less than 30 mins.
Is there any scenario in which Github doesn't start yanking features out of the free tier to protect the core service for paying users?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good. That's a gain, not a loss. We're better off without social media psyop manipulations and subscription services bolted onto our code repositories. We're better off without a giant evilcorp getting wholesale access to a large majority of the world's source code.
I just use GitHub for the basics: repo hosting, reviews and actions - what are the "social media psyop manipulations"? I've never really paid much attention to the other features.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just use GitHub for the basics: repo hosting, reviews and actions - what are the "social media psyop manipulations"? I've never really paid much attention to the other features.
It's good you can isolate yourself from it. But there's plenty of cases. Open source maintainers being harassed or being demanded work through Github's issues. Or being feed AI slop to review endlessly. Or recruiters filtering resumes via Github activity graphs or repository stars. And obviously the side shady market of all of the above (e.g. buying/selling popularity). Like the parent comment, I can't wait for socia…
I don't understand why Github hasn't solved this problem with pricing updates. My understanding is they are getting hammered with LLM generated code growing their traffic by over an order of magnitude. So why not rate limit non-paying users and charge for whatever scarce resource is being consumed that is causing them to constantly fall-over? This seems like a basic economics problem.
Because any price at all will immediately cause users to shift to another platform, and GitHub's value is that it is _the_ place to put your code on the internet.
There's a lot of consumer surplus with the features GitHub offers. I'm sure they can have better pricing tiers to capture the surplus without losing too many users.