A number of ticketing systems, like Unfuddle and Assembla, include free git repos. Personally I prefer Github, but if you're already using such a system, might as well utilize its git hosting (for a backup if nothing else)
Github major service outage
61–70 of 82 posts
Re: Github major service outage
#62I find it somewhat odd that, given git's emphasis on distributed version control, we see so many git users have centralized themselves quite heavily on GitHub. Whenever GitHub runs into problems like this, it reminds me of when a team's CVS or Subversion servers used to go down. It could be a pretty disruptive occurrence, if it wasn't resolved quickly. While git can theoretically handle this better, in practice the u…
Thats not true, with CVS/SVN you can not commit, log or do anything while the server is down. With git you can still commit to your local tree, push it to another server or send patches. While it might slow down workflows using github.com for push/pull its not that complicated to temporarily push/pull via another server.
Playing devil's advocate here... but if you were so inclined you could accomplish the same with SVN.
Creating and hosting a repo locally (or offsite) is trivially easy, and though it might not be as friendly or natural as it would be with git on a daily basis, it's not impossible either.
Re: Github major service outage
#63I find it somewhat odd that, given git's emphasis on distributed version control, we see so many git users have centralized themselves quite heavily on GitHub. Whenever GitHub runs into problems like this, it reminds me of when a team's CVS or Subversion servers used to go down. It could be a pretty disruptive occurrence, if it wasn't resolved quickly. While git can theoretically handle this better, in practice the u…
"I find it somewhat odd that, given git's emphasis on distributed version control, we see so many git users have centralized themselves quite heavily on GitHub."
It isn't odd. Almost nobody understands distributed version control, and fewer actually need it.
A big part of the reason that GitHub is popular is that git is way too complicated for most people to use. They don't understand the CLI or the concepts, and need a shiny web UI to abstract the (admittedly terrible) interface.
Most people need branching, merging and committing to a canonical repository. Even the groups that could theoretically benefit from distributed repos (larger, far-flung organizations), tend to be hamstrung by the complexity that they introduce, and therefore in practice tend set up a small number of canonical repositories...just like every other version control system, but more complicated and confusing.
Re: Github major service outage
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey, are you seriously defending 3 9's of uptime? That's abysmal. Github, if they're honest about their 12 month uptime levels would be lucky to be a single 9 service. Their uptime is Terrible with a capital T. But you know what? Until there's something better everyone is going to keep using them, right? Great services with values that are hard to find become damn near irreplaceable even with terrible uptime. This is…
Are you seriously incapable of distinguishing "hang on, you are getting numbers that look bad using statistical chicanery" from "Github = teh awesome"? Pointing out that someone whose point I agree with is using bad math as evidence is not disagreeing with the point, it's asking that people who agree with me behave like honest, civilized, human beings---I don't care that you've already gone through the hassle of gett…
Lying is a bit of a strong word. I think calling anything a single 9 service should be taken in jest. It's pretty hard to be down almost 40 days and still be in business.
Also, technically something with 98.9999% uptime would still be a single 9 service...
Re: Github major service outage
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thats not true, with CVS/SVN you can not commit, log or do anything while the server is down. With git you can still commit to your local tree, push it to another server or send patches. While it might slow down workflows using github.com for push/pull its not that complicated to temporarily push/pull via another server.
Playing devil's advocate here... but if you were so inclined you could accomplish the same with SVN. Creating and hosting a repo locally (or offsite) is trivially easy, and though it might not be as friendly or natural as it would be with git on a daily basis, it's not impossible either.
So if four people set up local svn servers, and then push to those servers during the outage, what happens when the outage is over?
Re: Github major service outage
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
That isn't fair at all. It's 99.770% for a single month, immediately following a major event. If you sampled yesterday (or tomorrow, assuming no further issues) it would be higher. If you just look at today, it's at the much lower at 95.871%. If you assume no availability issues for the last 12 months (not true, but the point remains) then it's 99.981%. During an actual outage, availability was at the unacceptable 0%…
Hey, are you seriously defending 3 9's of uptime? That's abysmal. Github, if they're honest about their 12 month uptime levels would be lucky to be a single 9 service. Their uptime is Terrible with a capital T. But you know what? Until there's something better everyone is going to keep using them, right? Great services with values that are hard to find become damn near irreplaceable even with terrible uptime. This is…
3 9s is abysmal?
Re: Github major service outage
#67Looking through the past few months of messages on http://status.github.com/messages, I'm really quite surprised at how many service outages, major or minor, are reported. It seems something goes wrong more days than not.
Re: Github major service outage
#68I find it somewhat odd that, given git's emphasis on distributed version control, we see so many git users have centralized themselves quite heavily on GitHub. Whenever GitHub runs into problems like this, it reminds me of when a team's CVS or Subversion servers used to go down. It could be a pretty disruptive occurrence, if it wasn't resolved quickly. While git can theoretically handle this better, in practice the u…
Do you have any info or anecdotes about work actually being disrupted because GitHub was unavailable?
Re: Github major service outage
#69I find it somewhat odd that, given git's emphasis on distributed version control, we see so many git users have centralized themselves quite heavily on GitHub. Whenever GitHub runs into problems like this, it reminds me of when a team's CVS or Subversion servers used to go down. It could be a pretty disruptive occurrence, if it wasn't resolved quickly. While git can theoretically handle this better, in practice the u…
Even worse is other tools that rely on Github, like Homebrew (Mac OS X package manager) which breaks in various silly ways when Github is down. Anyone happen to know a way around this specifically? Trying to install some stuff and brew just bails after getting 5xx from github.com.
To be fair to Homebrew, the reliance on GitHub is probably what makes it so accessible: easy for others to add formulae, and no hosting (and lessened security considerations) for them to worry about.
Re: Github major service outage
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Playing devil's advocate here... but if you were so inclined you could accomplish the same with SVN. Creating and hosting a repo locally (or offsite) is trivially easy, and though it might not be as friendly or natural as it would be with git on a daily basis, it's not impossible either.
So if four people set up local svn servers, and then push to those servers during the outage, what happens when the outage is over?
I've already said it wouldn't be easy, so I'm not sure what your point is.