Live data from Hacker News

Incident with Issues and Webhooks – Resolved

githubstatus.com

131–140 of 275 posts

Re: Incident with Issues and Webhooks – Resolved

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should make an alternative git site, but how to acquire users?

Make it nerdy enough to scare of agentic coders only. Also, blackjack and hookers are said to be helpful in such circumstances.

sourcehut is pretty close

Re: Incident with Issues and Webhooks – Resolved

#132
Probably the solution is not using the centralized Github for all work related to agentic coding but rather a distributed/local github repository from get go. This way only what hits the centralized github and becomes public, is something vetted and signed off by the human in the loop, hopefully reducing the AI slop and increasing the quality of commits.

Re: Incident with Issues and Webhooks – Resolved

#133
post #83
post #30

Github has 84.92% uptime in the last 90 days according to https://mrshu.github.io/github-statuses I don't know how this is even remotely close to acceptable.

It isn't. Lots of unacceptable things going on these days and everyone seems to be accepting them just fine.

I think it's like some kind of collective inferiority complex. Nobody really understands things anymore but everyone is afraid to point out mistakes of others because they are scared to come under scrutiny themselves then.

Re: Incident with Issues and Webhooks – Resolved

#135
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI agents have changed the scalability properties of basically the entire internet. It used to be that GitHub could rely on a finite number of people interacting with their platform in real human ways in real observable patterns. So I'm assuming that they scale for those patterns, and optimize for the UI and UX hotspots. But now everyone's got a moltbot running 24/7, sometimes many, and it's completely overloading a…

>AI agents have changed the scalability properties of basically the entire internet. Why is GH the only service provider seeing such consistently bad availability then? Everyone has had to scale massively all the time, if GH is choosing moltbots capacity over basic availability for the rest of the humans, they have made the wrong choice.

Some people really abuse the f out of the system in a way optimized to take github down. Like they push every minute or for every commit instead of with certain time intervals (e.g. a single push a few times a day for each repo).

I follow some of the accounts that run 24/7 agent sesssion. Their projects are not even that novel for the number of commits that appear on the profile. Many of the commits have the log of beads, claude session etc (no change to the actual code). Some of them are ports of some projects to another language. AI surely will increase the productivity, but the waste and noise that some people are willing to commit ....

Re: Incident with Issues and Webhooks – Resolved

#136
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been unacceptable for months, but now it's at the level of "we should actively look for alternatives".

Any centralized solution like GitHub is going to suffer the same fate as vibe coding chokes these services. The only option to have high uptime is to self host and most organizations can't do that easily. Time will tell if GitHub can scale up enough to meet demand.

Not really. It is possible to implement systems that handle a lot more scale than github has. This is proven by systems that exist today.

It might be hard to create such systems using ruby and microslop AI management though

Re: Incident with Issues and Webhooks – Resolved

#137
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't. Lots of unacceptable things going on these days and everyone seems to be accepting them just fine.

We should make an alternative git site, but how to acquire users?

Forgejo is a thing. But the headlines lately make it sound like it’s not in great shape either.

Re: Incident with Issues and Webhooks – Resolved

#139
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the GitHub COO on April 3rd: Platform activity is surging. There were 1 billion commits in 2025. Now, it's 275 million per week, on pace for 14 billion this year if growth remains linear (spoiler: it won't.) GitHub Actions has grown from 500M minutes/week in 2023 to 1B minutes/week in 2025, and now 2.1B minutes so far this week. So we're pushing incredibly hard on more CPUs, scaling services, and strengthening G…

This is extremely interesting how fast this happened. Either AI use surged massively in the last quarter, or this is a very sneaky move by Anthropic. Looking at my own stats, I don't think I'm using Claude Code much more than I used to, but my commits have gone way up. I have a feeling they've tuned the models recently to commit more often, which gives the illusion of more work being done.

Many things at once I suspect:

1. Models have got way better, which means you are far more likely to get something working. I know I used to have little 'tool'/'weekend projects' all the time that wouldn't get off the starting blocks before, now it takes a few minutes often to build them, and once I've built them I tend to want to have them saved on github. Quite how useful they turn out to be is another question though...

2. Related, because the models are a lot better I can generate far more code per unit time. On Sonnet last year I'd have to babysit the model and constantly 'steer' it, which meant a lot of the CC time was actually me reviewing it. Now with Opus4.7 it can often just churn away for 10-30minutes and get something reasonable.

3. Most importantly, just the volume of new users to coding agents - loads of new developers shipping far more far frequently.

4. Many users who were not on github, now signing up and pushing code to it. "Vibe coders" basically who don't have SWE experience and their agent tells them git would be a good idea.

Each of these would be a big increase in scale, but combined it is vvv high

Re: Incident with Issues and Webhooks – Resolved

#140

Github has published some incredible usage rate increase numbers, which they ascribe to the rise of agentic coding. At some point, they are going to have to change rate limits, cut free-tier usage, or find some other path to reducing load. It's clear that their infrastructure can't keep up with this significant increase, and it's unlikely that they're going to just absorb the increased costs themselves. Very curious…

Amazing that Microsoft didn't see this coming after aggressively pushing AI everywhere for years.
Post reply on HN