101–110 of 271 posts
Ha so that's why my git pull were so slow. I should have checked HN faster.
it'd be great if they set up their CLI tools such that if there's an error/timeout, they'll do a check of their status page so you don't get the standard 'error' but rather a 'dont worry, youre not doing anything wrong. its borked, our bad' message.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, conveniences like: - A canonical name and place on the web; - Access policy enforcement (who can commit and when); - The whole pull request thing, with tags, issues, review, discussion, etc linked to it; - Code review, linked to said policy enforcement; - Issue tracking, even as basic as what GitHub offers; - A trusted store for signing keys, so commits are verified; - CI/CD triggers and runners; - A page with r…
> - Access policy enforcement (who can commit and when); Interestingly, what GitHub mostly enforces is where your branches point to. Not who can make commits. That's mostly because of how git works, not because of any grand design on GitHub's part.
Out of the box, git does not offer that, and this does require a single point of enforcement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
people could not be more clear that their preference is for reliable and easy-to-use centralized services maintained by professionals, and not decentralized systems that require a great deal of user expertise
I actually don't care whether it's centralised or decentralised, or who's managing it. But you are right that I want reliable and easy-to-use services. And centralisation is often one way to go there. As an interesting counterpoint: Git itself is decentralised and replaced centralised services like Subversion. And that made git easier to use, especially easier to get started with: no need for a server, no need to be…
Ha so that's why my git pull were so slow. I should have checked HN faster.
it'd be great if they set up their CLI tools such that if there's an error/timeout, they'll do a check of their status page so you don't get the standard 'error' but rather a 'dont worry, youre not doing anything wrong. its borked, our bad' message.
Make an issue in gh CLI repo, I like the idea
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A bloke called Linus Thorvalds created git for Linux development when the commercial service used for that ceased to be useful, for one non technical reason or another. github basically shoves a webby frontend and workflows on top of someone else's work. That's all fine and good but github is not git. As a professional IT consultant, I want tools, I use lots of other's and I also create my own and I also generally in…
Linux development is also centralized. Instead of Github they use an email list that has patches sent to it. If that goes down, your change isn't going into Linux today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a professional software developer, you rely on software written by those hobbyist hackers. Whenever you do a clone or an npm install or apt get or pip install, etc... You choose github because your dependencies chose git
Sure, but as you say those hobbyist developers aren't responsible for keeping a specific server up. They are 'just' writing some software. (And even among professionals, there's a big difference between Site Reliability Engineering and Software Engineering.)
It was down for ~2 hours. The status website claims "degraded performance", but in reality we get git@github.com: Permission denied (publickey). Either GitHub didn't know how to communicate, or they were not sure about the real impact. This is bad.
Status pages are rarely honest. The company will lie to salvage their SLA. "Degraded performance" or "some customers are experiencing an elevated error rate" should be interpreted as "service unavailable / outage"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
people could not be more clear that their preference is for reliable and easy-to-use centralized services maintained by professionals, and not decentralized systems that require a great deal of user expertise
I actually don't care whether it's centralised or decentralised, or who's managing it. But you are right that I want reliable and easy-to-use services. And centralisation is often one way to go there. As an interesting counterpoint: Git itself is decentralised and replaced centralised services like Subversion. And that made git easier to use, especially easier to get started with: no need for a server, no need to be…
svn doesn’t require a server and there is no need to be online. It works perfectly fine over the file:// protocol.
Tangential at best but I work in a regulated industry and we're starting to get some heavy scrutiny from external auditors and regulators on the way we plan to address extended outages and forced exits from third party vendors. This goes beyond basic DR/BCP and plans are reviewed with at least a high level scenario exercise. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/06/09/2023-12... On the surface a product like…
It's almost as if only Git is distributed, but people sold out to Github for convenience. Too bad Git lacks a distributed bug tracker and wiki system like Fossil. Guess Github has to fail a lot more for things to change.
people could not be more clear that their preference is for reliable and easy-to-use centralized services maintained by professionals, and not decentralized systems that require a great deal of user expertise