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

GitHub was down

githubstatus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 171 posts

Re: GitHub was down

#161

Post by tcbasche »

behindsight wrote: post #154
tcbasche wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is 100% not the Dunning-Kruger effect. How on Earth would it be? edit - from wikipedia: In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is.

Maybe not directly but it could still apply. I interpreted GP as saying the aforementioned management has just enough cursory knowledge to want to apply the same hammer that worked on a simple system to that on a complex system, but not enough knowledge to realize the unknown-unknowns that they aren't even aware of.

I wouldn't say that's a psychological phenomenon though, just ignorance, arrogance or over-confidence.

Re: GitHub was down

#162

Post by londons_explore »

masklinn wrote: post #122
djsumdog wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also changed the "Group Membership" dialog to be paginated when you add a new person to an organization. We have over 200 groups so now I have to page through for ever new hire we add. There's not even a search option. I'm sure the pagination might better for performance, but it's terrible UI.

They may have missed that one, because at the same time they introduced both pagination and search to the repository membership page, and boy did that help us on one of our repos with a few hundred direct collaborators, by the end we could only manage access through the API because the page didn't even load most of the time.

I see why web pages need pagination so the server or browser doesn't OOM, but there really ought to be 10000 entries per page, not 25 that most sites seem to like.

Ctrl+F on a list of 10000 entries is far easier than clicking through 400 ajaxy pages and trying to figure out some custom and buggy filtering system that probably doesn't allow regex.

Past 10000 records most sites probably ought to just let you export in something bigquery compatible anyway - Regular Joe isn't going to have more than 10000 of anything, and anyone who does can learn how to use proper data tools.

Re: GitHub was down

#163

Post by jsmith45 »

tribaal wrote: post #83
amelius wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interesting thing is that Git is entirely non-centralized, so in theory they could simply redirect to servers onto which the data has been mirrored.

Yes, git is. The issues, comments, PRs, wikis etc... that we all came to depend on aren't.

The wiki is stored as a git repository, although to my knowledge the others are not.

Re: GitHub was down

#164

Post by _bxg1 »

zenexer wrote: post #160
MyelinatedT wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow Atlassian... That is quite horrifying! Glad I stuck with GitHub through the MS acquisition. Bitbucket was probably my main alternative.

For the record, Azure DevOps did the same thing to me when we switched over to Azure AD. My account and repositories ended up in an entirely corrupt state. Support was eventually able to resolve most of it, but I’m still discovering problems.

I shudder at the thought of GitHub one day trying to integrate with people's Microsoft accounts.

Re: GitHub was down

#165

Post by hhtoyou »

MyelinatedT wrote: post #157
_bxg1 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I tried to log in I was prompted to "upgrade my account" to a "Bitbucket Cloud" account. After doing so, all of my repositories were gone. It seems that my repositories remained on my "Bitbucket ""Regular""" account but that my email address was no longer associated with it, giving me no way of logging in to it. I emailed support 6 hours ago and have yet to get a response.

Wow Atlassian... That is quite horrifying! Glad I stuck with GitHub through the MS acquisition. Bitbucket was probably my main alternative.

Ms ruins everything because now it can't copy other people's work

Re: GitHub was down

#166

Post by frenchy »

amelius wrote: post #151
chrisweekly wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"But that would probably pave the way for easy migrations away from Github." bingo

At least they could have used the concepts in Git's design. But it seems they didn't learn much from the tool they based their service on.

I don't think learned is the right word to use here. Github's centralized design and vendor lock-in is quite intentional.

Re: GitHub was down

#167

Post by a012 »

somesortofsystm wrote: post #134
waynenilsen wrote: post #51

Don't forget to check your SLAs Enterprise = 99.95% (quarterly) https://help.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-enterpr... They're having a bad February but January was good. We will see what March has in store

Mitigate: Local repos.

With their new Github Actions, these downtime would stall your entire company workflows if fully depend on it.

Re: GitHub was down

#168

Post by masklinn »

londons_explore wrote: post #162
masklinn wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They may have missed that one, because at the same time they introduced both pagination and search to the repository membership page, and boy did that help us on one of our repos with a few hundred direct collaborators, by the end we could only manage access through the API because the page didn't even load most of the time.

I see why web pages need pagination so the server or browser doesn't OOM, but there really ought to be 10000 entries per page, not 25 that most sites seem to like. Ctrl+F on a list of 10000 entries is far easier than clicking through 400 ajaxy pages and trying to figure out some custom and buggy filtering system that probably doesn't allow regex. Past 10000 records most sites probably ought to just let you export in…

> there really ought to be 10000 entries per page

Did you miss the part where I noted Github’s lists fail to load (let alone render) long before that point?

Re: GitHub was down

#169

Post by akx »

donkeydoug wrote: post #96
bflesch wrote: post #16

Are they migrating to azure?

I had the same guess... migrating from aws to azure & hitting some bumps. Have to assume they won't be very forthcoming about it if that is the reason.

I don't think they mainly run on AWS, but on "bare metal": https://github.com/holman/ama/issues/553

Re: GitHub was down

#170

Post by rthomas6 »

vraivroo wrote: post #155
rthomas6 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but not better than Gitlab.

Do you use Gitlab? Everybody on HN loves to love Gitlab because they're the underdog, and the product isn't bad, but it's not that great either.

Yes, I use it for personal projects. I also use a company-hosted version at work. The built in CI is great. I can't think of a reason, other than price for companies, why to use GitHub over gitlab. Both are great, but gitlab's built-in CI I think is easier to use and better integrated.
Post reply on HN