111–120 of 221 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the “streak” days of continuous uptime, or of days with at least one downtime incident? I think it’s the latter :]
It looks like it is the number of consecutive days with no incident. If you look at 31 Dec 2025, that corresponds to an 8-day period with no incidents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GH was acquired by microsoft some eight years ago. It has been working quite well until recently. People may have had complaints about functionality, features, commercial issues, but the thing used to at least have a decent uptime until recently.
Has nothing to do with Microsoft acquisition... AI usage has increased demand and load. More PRs, more Action runners, more of everything firing. GitHub just wasn't ready for the scale and are now having issues catching up with it as it continues to increase exponentially.
But a couple of years ago they were crowing about how much work they were doing to prepare for “a billion developers”. If they had actually done that then the actual load from agents should have been no problem.
GitHub is not agent scale. Multiple companies are trying to create new versioning primitives/architectures which can handle machine-level code generation - 1 commit per second per repo. It's like switching from horse buggies to automobiles, the whole worlds needs re-architecturing to handle the new load. The age of boutique hand-coding is being replaced by the age of industrial software factories.
This seems odd to me. Why would you need to commit every second?
is it me or ever since AI coding became the norm, there have been way more outages with otherwise reliable services? I get downtime on Supabase every few weeks. Even Cloudflare. And now Github
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has nothing to do with Microsoft acquisition... AI usage has increased demand and load. More PRs, more Action runners, more of everything firing. GitHub just wasn't ready for the scale and are now having issues catching up with it as it continues to increase exponentially.
This is a convenient lie that GH likes to tell. Growth is nothing like exponential, its at most 300% over several years according to their own public numbers (presented misleadingly on graphs) But a couple of years ago they were crowing about how much work they were doing to prepare for “a billion developers”. If they had actually done that then the actual load from agents should have been no problem.
GitHub is not agent scale. Multiple companies are trying to create new versioning primitives/architectures which can handle machine-level code generation - 1 commit per second per repo. It's like switching from horse buggies to automobiles, the whole worlds needs re-architecturing to handle the new load. The age of boutique hand-coding is being replaced by the age of industrial software factories.
Why the heck would you want to do this. Using git as your undo chain sounds like a pretty awful thing to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The UI of that page is so nice, should build a github competitor. The user profile / contributions and PR UX is pretty much the entire "hub" product since git is a fully separate offline app.
> The UI of that page is so nice Is it? Seems a text description of "Make a website outlining 'How cooked GitHub' is with a modern style" to basically any LLM would produce exactly that UI and design, literally nothing of that design a human had any influence on, besides the ones selecting what training data the used LLMs was trained with. I think most of us who've tried using LLMs for web-design can recognize that s…
I originally made the core data functionality of this site for myself because I was curious what the uptime stats for each service were (I build something that heavily depends on GitHub), and to viz the distribution/severity of those incidents, again per-service, over time.
It involved a lot of back-and-forth, and is not a one-shotter; maybe closer to 40-50 shots over maybe ~10 hours of human time. A couple memorable things that made it complicated, irrespective of the UI: sneaky bugs around double-counting time for overlapping incidents, no GitHub API for incidents so you need to puppeteer-scrape the backlog of incidents to get historical data. Although, you all are right to call out that the CSS was three shots, though, and it shows :) I thought it looked so cool in ~January 2026 and now it gives me the ick, too!
For people who are curious about how much direction went into the information architecture/presentation, it was fairly substantial. I wanted a contribution graph style viz and it took many turns to get it working the way I wanted. The swimlane viz for selected-day-incident visualization was also me, because I love swimlane graphs.
I ended up sharing it with some folks and they wanted to reference it, so I put it on a website. So it's jokey for sure, but I take my jokes seriously! I'm grateful that people have feedback on how it can better functionally and visually :)
This is getting ridiculous. One particularly concerning thing I’m seeing is that pull requests on both the web UI and API aren’t reflecting all commits or branch changes consistently. It would be very easy to merge something without realizing you’re not actually reviewing the full diff.
wild that there is a large pattern forming up of unreliable software being pushed