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

GitHub Git Operations Are Down

githubstatus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 271 posts

Re: GitHub Git Operations Are Down

#161

Post by Over2Chars »

parpfish wrote: post #154
Over2Chars wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're just using your own data center instead of Jeff's bit barn. I mean seriously people, a "cloud" is just someone elses' data center . Am I missing something?

Yes, but if it’s somebody else’s data center it’s on them to figure out how to earthquake proof or whatever. The cloud isnt just renting a computer, it’s renting a computer with a guarantee of uptime that somebody else can be financially liable for

If Jeff is using DataCenter XYZ, and then letting me use his API to manage my VMs on his "cloud", and I decide to rent a cage at the exact same DataCenter XYZ on my own servers, I'm now "self-hosting".

Same Datacenter. Same reliability infrastructure wise - power, earthquakes, tsunami, typhoons, black plague, monkey pox, etc.

Re: GitHub Git Operations Are Down

#163

Post by Over2Chars »

theteapot wrote: post #144
Over2Chars wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how self-hosting solves the problem of 3rd party vendors unless you're standing up a self-hosting solution as a hot/cold backup to your 3rd party vendor "in the event of an extended outage". Kinda eliminates all those pennies saved (in theory) for outsourcing to "the cloud" if you have to duplicate your infra. Hybrid has always seemed the most optimal approach, but there's always someone in charge who thi…

Doesn't it exactly solve "extended outages and forced exits from third party vendors."?

Self hosting as an alternative (excluding the 3rd party) or self-hosting as a method of redundancy (in addition to the third party)?

If you self host as an ALTERNATIVE to the 3rd party you have all of the same problems - more because you know about them, and the 3rd party can make all these claims you can't verify until they fall over with a "load balancer misconfig" story you also can't verify.

If you self-host redundantly to a 3rd party you have no special benefit (it does the same thing) AND the additional cost of a redundant infrastructure.

Why not just have redundant 3rd parties (so-called "multi-cloud") if you can't or won't trust your 3rd party.

Re: GitHub Git Operations Are Down

#165

Post by confooseddd »

Groxx wrote: post #142
lucasoshiro wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's the same as not having one. That's the way the Linux kernel (the first Git repository) and Git [2] itself manage their codes. There's even a git send-email command, that prepare the commits as patches and send them following the using the correct template. [1] Linux kernel, IIO subsystem: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/ [2] Git mailing list: https://lore.kernel.org/git/

I agree that Git has more of a claim to this than Facebook, but that's kinda like saying a turtle is more of a car than a banana is a car. Like, yes, it's true. Unlike a banana, turtles have 4 movement-enabling things, they use them to move mostly forward and backwards and not sideways, and other things can ride on them. It's probably more of a car. But it's not a car. Git has no issue tracker. It's really not a cont…

A CI infra just needs to communicate. It can communicate over email, like it does for the kernel.

A bug tracker is just assorted communication. One can easily build it over email.

You're just indulging in hyperbole for the sake of it. Nobody said git has an issue tracker in it.

Re: GitHub Git Operations Are Down

#166

Post by smrq »

bluGill wrote: post #137
manwe150 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hg names the branches and keeps the name. The other day I was looking at a sequence of commits trying to figure out where they came from and knowing the branch would have helped. mg always kept history though. Git has always encougaged squashes and rebase to keep a linear history so that information was lost.

We all want history information to be lost. (Unless you are running a version control system that timestamps every keystroke.) Reasonable people may disagree on what information should be kept.

Re: GitHub Git Operations Are Down

#167

Post by dangoldin »

hamandcheese wrote: post #153
dangoldin wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is that often you also end up relying on GitHub for CI/CD so not as easy of a change. Imagine GH being down and you need to deploy a hotfix. How do you handle that? Especially, if you followed best practices and set up a system where all PRs need to go through code review.

Systems like these should have an escape hatch of some sort. The key part is that it needs to be auditable. Anything you do in CI should be possible outside of CI, at least by some subset of users.

Yea - definitely. Just not ideal and something that needs to be built out, tested, etc.

Re: GitHub Git Operations Are Down

#168

Post by nosefurhairdo »

dangoldin wrote: post #139
macintux wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Problem is that often you also end up relying on GitHub for CI/CD so not as easy of a change. Imagine GH being down and you need to deploy a hotfix. How do you handle that? Especially, if you followed best practices and set up a system where all PRs need to go through code review.

I've run into a scenario where one of our rarely used environments needed a hotfix and the GitHub action we used to deploy there was broken. Was easy enough to translate GitHub action steps to shell scripting for a quick, manual deployment.

Re: GitHub Git Operations Are Down

#169

Post by confooseddd »

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.

You do know what's a mailing list right? You seem to be confusing it with GitHub.

A mailing list can go down and nothing would happen. The main point is to post patches to the maintainer. The mailing list is for a public record of things.

The only centralised thing is repo hosting on kernel.org. And that isn't the only official place, you can get the repo published on googlesource or GitHub, so it isn't exactly central enough.

Re: GitHub Git Operations Are Down

#170

Post by Tmpod »

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.

I suppose that's true. In any case, though, getting a backup mailing list going is much much easier than something like GitHub, and you can always mail patches directly if maintainers allow it.
Post reply on HN