Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitHub's down?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 154 posts

Re: GitHub's down?

#111

Post by johnchristopher »

kjjw wrote: post #44
jballanc wrote: post #18

For everyone who is currently loosing productivity, perhaps your time might be well spent reviewing `git daemon`: http://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-on-the-Server-Git-Daemon

OK I get what you're saying, but honestly, who is really 'losing productivity'? I suspect the ones saying they are in fact just getting on with other tasks they can do because they are, despite github, still using distributed version control and do have access to and the ability to commit to code repositories. You don't need to host your own git daemon or github clone to get that functionality. I don't use github bec…

I diaagree on some points: github/git is not an appropriate backup strategy and github is not user friendly enough for non technical people (the default repository page, github pages is another matter).

Re: GitHub's down?

#112

Post by merb »

winterbe wrote: post #107

Every time GitHub is down I'm peering at Upsource: https://www.jetbrains.com/upsource/

UpSource IS not a repository. It is just a Viewer for your repository. You still need to host everything yourself.

As you can see here:

> https://www.jetbrains.com/upsource/roadmap/

Git hosting is on the roadmap, not ready yet. Also Upsource takes a shitload of memory.

Re: GitHub's down?

#113

Post by brudgers »

I read about Github being down and know that it sucks for many people. What I find interesting is thinking about how quickly so many installations of distributed version control adopted a de facto central server. Github is a platform that should not need a particularly high uptime from the point of view of any one user.

But of course it does because so much of its utility is that it substitutes for a lower level partition strategy for source code version control at the level of the individual user. By which I mean that the whole point of distributed version control is to have sufficient resources for working at hand regardless of what is happening remotely as the default condition.

Git is designed to be available and partition tolerant. Using it with the expectation of consistency is a mistake and Git requires manual intervention on the part of users to even get good-enough-consistency. Github can't change that.

None of which changes makes Github being down not suck for the people for whom it sucks.

Re: GitHub's down?

#114

Post by _asummers »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #105
_asummers wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone pushed code to master or some other specified pre-master branch. Jenkins pulls down, builds, runs tests, uploads artifacts to S3. That doesn't sound unrealistic or risky on the surface, modulo relying on both GH and S3 being up. Arguably you should be able to mirror on both an internal git repository somewhere, but GitHub is down infrequently enough that it's hard to justify that work + continuing costs if yo…

That sounds exactly like our deployment strategy, and I can push to production when GitHub is down. What's preventing you from copying & pasting the build script from Jenkins into a terminal in a local checkout? S3 being down would be a show stopper, but GH being down is just really annoying.

What about the code it has to build? Where does that come from? What about third party libraries it has to pull in? If the only thing the build server needed to build your code was the build script, this would be easy.

Re: GitHub's down?

#115

Post by vacri »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #105
_asummers wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone pushed code to master or some other specified pre-master branch. Jenkins pulls down, builds, runs tests, uploads artifacts to S3. That doesn't sound unrealistic or risky on the surface, modulo relying on both GH and S3 being up. Arguably you should be able to mirror on both an internal git repository somewhere, but GitHub is down infrequently enough that it's hard to justify that work + continuing costs if yo…

That sounds exactly like our deployment strategy, and I can push to production when GitHub is down. What's preventing you from copying & pasting the build script from Jenkins into a terminal in a local checkout? S3 being down would be a show stopper, but GH being down is just really annoying.

Developers don't always have access rights to the build systems or artifact repositories. Most of the devs I work with don't - not because I'm not willing to share, but because they're supremely uninterested in the deployment systems. If there's an outage, the people who can fix it aren't always available right then and there.

Re: GitHub's down?

#116

Post by bryanlarsen »

_asummers wrote: post #114
bryanlarsen wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds exactly like our deployment strategy, and I can push to production when GitHub is down. What's preventing you from copying & pasting the build script from Jenkins into a terminal in a local checkout? S3 being down would be a show stopper, but GH being down is just really annoying.

What about the code it has to build? Where does that come from? What about third party libraries it has to pull in? If the only thing the build server needed to build your code was the build script, this would be easy.

The code is building is coming from the local checkout. As for third party libraries, npm used to be so unreliable that we needed a strategy for that.

Re: GitHub's down?

#117

Post by gibsonje »

danielsamuels wrote: post #95
sp4ke wrote: post #20

Funny, I switched our projects to Gitlab a week ago and told the team: Because we should not trust a centrealized platform to keep our code decentralized.

So you switched from one central platform to another singular central platform? Am I missing something here?

This is what I don't get. I trust github as a central platform more than hosting my own gitlab in the cloud.

There's a lot of people spreading a holier than thou attitude in this thread.

Re: GitHub's down?

#118

Post by acdha »

johnchristopher wrote: post #111
kjjw wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK I get what you're saying, but honestly, who is really 'losing productivity'? I suspect the ones saying they are in fact just getting on with other tasks they can do because they are, despite github, still using distributed version control and do have access to and the ability to commit to code repositories. You don't need to host your own git daemon or github clone to get that functionality. I don't use github bec…

I diaagree on some points: github/git is not an appropriate backup strategy and github is not user friendly enough for non technical people (the default repository page, github pages is another matter).

Do you have any support for those assertions? In particular, the backup claim is rather dubious unless you're redefining “backup” to be a much higher bar than most common answers meet.

Re: GitHub's down?

#119

Post by coherentpony »

brudgers wrote: post #113

I read about Github being down and know that it sucks for many people. What I find interesting is thinking about how quickly so many installations of distributed version control adopted a de facto central server. Github is a platform that should not need a particularly high uptime from the point of view of any one user. But of course it does because so much of its utility is that it substitutes for a lower level part…

> Github is a platform that should not need a particularly high uptime from the point of view of any one user.

This is totally false. GitHub doesn't just provide a git server, it also provides ticketing and project management. When GitHub is down, projects that rely heavily on, for example, commenting on issues grind to a halt.

Yes, you don't need GitHub to be up 99.999% of the time to do a `git push` every once in a while, but there are other projects that use other features of GitHub besides the git server aspect.

Re: GitHub's down?

#120

Post by acdha »

mohsinhijazee wrote: post #19
andygmb wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

perhaps a good time to reconsider depending on a third party for your important services to deploy?

Yes, but these decisions aren't under me plus setting up a github kind of thing is way too time consuming with all the features that we're used to now.

Setting up a GitHub alternative is quite expensive but if you're just making your deployment system more robust it doesn't need to be more time consuming as having a server which you can SSH to.
Post reply on HN