GitHub Git Operations Are Down

Post by ascar » Tue, Jan 14, 2025, 1:50 AM UTC

eru wrote: post #75

sixo wrote: post #19

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…

Post by lol_me » Tue, Jan 14, 2025, 1:51 AM UTC

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #119

School-Cotton wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they'll continue to feel like that even after that. GitHub being down once in a blue moon is more acceptable to the vast majority of users than having to cobble together your own nerdy distributed version of everything.

I was imagining something a bit more disastrous than that. A big enough solar flare could take parts of the planet offline for months. Years if they can't source enough replacement transformers. There are also political reasons that countries go offline. Then it'll be up to the nerds who manage to cobble together their own distributed version of everything--even if it's a significantly reduced definition of everythin…

Post by LPisGood » Tue, Jan 14, 2025, 1:53 AM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #95

gerdesj wrote: post #89

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.

Post by bluGill » Tue, Jan 14, 2025, 1:55 AM UTC

manwe150 wrote: post #120

bluGill wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The above is why my company left mercurial years ago for git. Mercurial of 10 years ago was better version control than git (git still can't track a branch and how it changes) - but the rest of github is much better.

The git reflog tracks branches and how they changed. Is that roughly what mercurial has? (It’s been more than a decade since I switched from hg to git as well, so my remaining memory is minimal). GitHub also has an API for querying historical branch info, which is more permanent than reflog, though quite annoying to parse for that info if I recall right.

Post by dangoldin » Tue, Jan 14, 2025, 2:00 AM UTC

macintux wrote: post #118

jcims wrote: post #88

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…

The nice thing about git, from my perspective, is that if your entire hosted service vanishes, you can still reconstruct what you need from your users’ working directories. All of the important branches should be there. Somewhere. And any important integration branches that aren’t cached can be reconstructed. Of all the many dependencies on cloud services, git is by far the last I’d worry overly much about.