Live data from Hacker News

Incident with Github.com [resolved]

githubstatus.com

651–660 of 1001 posts

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#651
post #362

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

I started my career in programming with Subversion was the most popular tool. I also had to work a little with VSS, Perforce, Mercurial and, obviously, Git. I was one of the first users of Google Code...

So, relatively, not so long ago it was pretty common to host all this stuff yourself. I don't think (or maybe don't remember) Subversion having any Web interface of its own, but, since forever Git came with GitWeb. I remember configuring it for the first time: any extra bit of configuration, especially those that resulted in some added interactive functionality seemed exciting. For a week, I'd push something to my branch and immediately refresh the browser page to see my changes reflected in the remote repository :D

The infatuation wore off very quickly: after a month I have almost forgotten the Web interface even existed.

The cycle repeated with hosted services, the addition of PR interface, the addition of "pages", the bug reports, the built-in Wiki. After discovering the new gadget and associated hype, invariably, came the realization that the predating existing functionality was... better. The PR discussion in the Web page detached from the code is a lot worse than the PR discussion in the PR itself. The built-in issue tracker doesn't come close to the stand-alone product functionality. The built-in Wiki is ridiculously underwhelming when compared to an actual Wiki.

And so was the CI. For me, it started with Gitlab. There are oh so many reasons to hate Jenkins, so, whenever anyone announced an alternative platform, I'd absolutely check it out, and so did a lot of others, I presume. I was super hyped up about the possibility of running CI from the command line, completely locally on my laptop. And then it turned out to be a bait-and-switch kind of thing. I've created monumental dozen-steps and branching pipelines connecting multiple projects only to realize that the best CI is the one that uses as little as possible of the platform tools.

In the end of the day, I came to realization, that beside the social aspect of the platform like GitHub, everything that it offers on top of the essential Git repository storage is too low quality. And so do competitors. If I was ever again tasked with setting up a company code repository storage, I'd go with a physical server attached to the local office network, unless there's no office, in which case, probably, some EC2 VM would do the job...

Places like GitHub or Gitlab lure you in with their free tier offering, where you get the storage space and some other goodies for free, but once you need to upgrade to the paid tier, you inevitably realize that it's not worth the money they charge for it.

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#652
post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Git doesn't even need to be "hosted" anywhere. That's the point of it being distributed. What needs to be hosted somewhere are all the barnacles (like issue tracking, code reviewing, CI, and so on) that have grown out around git, that people and businesses have become dependent on.

Which is why they cleverly moved the central story of a software change from the commit to the PR. Commits migrate automatically with the repo. But migrating PR descriptions and comments takes engineering effort.

Where would you put comments then? Sure, there’s always mailing lists, but even so, someone still has to host Mailman.

I do think GitHub has positively contributed to the software industry and open source. It’s been enshittified for sure, but it has had a golden era.

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#653
post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m willing to give them a break as I’m assuming they have a lot of scaling problems due to the influx of LLM assisted coding. But maybe I’m wrong?

Save that for your local mom-and-pop store: Microsoft is a multi-billion dollar corporation with enough resources to, at the very least, provide a reliable service for enterprise clients. The "AI is using a lot of resources" excuse was maybe acceptable last year but not in Q3 2026.

Doubly so given this is hardly a surprise. We've been on this trajectory for at least a couple of years now. They don't get to shrug, point at 10x volume, and act like they've been blindsided.

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#654
post #29

I had a lot of goodwill for GitHub but I think today is the tipping point. Looking at a unicorn page, I feel this lingering hope that it's transient (like it usually was in the old days) but my mind reassures me it's probably going to be a long full outage again. The hope is dead.

I’m willing to give them a break as I’m assuming they have a lot of scaling problems due to the influx of LLM assisted coding. But maybe I’m wrong?

Considering their leadership ushered that in themselves, that’s just poor planning.

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#656
post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds more like a cult rather than a social club.

actually it's a democracy

This gives the impression that there's a collective group of differing views that come together and make decisions. It's quite the opposite from my experience and they seem to actively chase out anyone who dissents from the collective hive mind's view.

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 should be neutral. 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 ov…

> are relatively easy to host yourself.

The value these centralized services provide is the centralization itself - that makes things easy to find. Remember the web before Altavista? Finding anything was detective work, guessing domains, following links through multiple pages, digging in newsgroups, asking around, and so on.

Open source was successful, but not nearly at the same level it is now thanks to precisely platforms such as GitHub (and Launchpad, and Bitbucket, and Gitlab, etc) that added useful functionality such as bug trackers and project management on top of a version control system.

Now, if we could do something like GitHub on top of a network such as Mastodon, then we would have something that's centralized enough to be useful and distributed enough to be indestructible.

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Infrastructure should be neutral. 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 ov…

Infrastructure can at least be content-politically neutral.

Not even that is really the case.

Even if whoever owns and runs the infra would like that to be the case, the law of wherever they are can put restrictions on this as well.

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#659
post #29

I had a lot of goodwill for GitHub but I think today is the tipping point. Looking at a unicorn page, I feel this lingering hope that it's transient (like it usually was in the old days) but my mind reassures me it's probably going to be a long full outage again. The hope is dead.

That unicorn was already served in the RubyOnRails days!

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#660
post #399
post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many weeks/months can they use this excuse? They are literally are at the forefront of this emerging industry and are capturing untold value. To let their product suffer and potentially lose market share because of it is extremely foolish

Scaling can take time but they've had at least a year to prepare. It's not like any demand increase they've seen was overnight... At most normal companies you monitor your systems and address potential bottlenecks before they reach a tipping point. And generally you want enough headroom that a sudden 2-3x increase in demand wouldn't take out the service. Either Github's technical leadership/talent is completely out o…

> Either Github's technical leadership/talent is completely out of their depth (seems unlikely), or they're not hiring enough engineers to work on these capacity issues.

Regarding their leadership, I'd argue the latter implies the former.

So yeah I'd say they're out of their depth.

Post reply on HN