Disabled at 22 million commits • Hacker News Board

Re: Disabled at 22 million commits

#21

Post by orf » Sun, Jul 02, 2023, 10:23 PM UTC

DocTomoe wrote: post #3

[flagged]

Many people have mentioned that this is incorrect, but I wanted to ask why you thought this, and why you thought it so confidently?

The Linux kernel repo contains 1.1 million commits and 80k files on master. That would mean a naive total of 88,000,000,000 files being stored as a “full copy of the repository”.

Does this pass the smell test?

Re: Disabled at 22 million commits

#22

Post by lucb1e » Sun, Jul 02, 2023, 10:27 PM UTC

housemusicfan wrote: post #17

MBCook wrote: post #9

So the author was purposefully trying to do the most extreme thing they could to see how git/GitHub act/break. I don’t blame GH at all. Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20230702215522/https://sh.itjust...

So basically this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kzb6uf0U0k

Video showing Simpsons going to an 'all you can eat' and staying until after closing time still gobbling down food without end, owner has homer thrown out.

Re: Disabled at 22 million commits

#23

Post by eyelidlessness » Sun, Jul 02, 2023, 10:29 PM UTC

Kwpolska wrote: post #15

> I’ve also asked if they can re-enable it so I can give one more commit to say the final results on the readme then (public) archive it. Entitled much? The author should be happy GitHub didn't just ban them for violating the ToS and intentionally trying to break things.

They asked. They didn’t demand, and they seem prepared to accept whatever GitHub decides. If I were fielding that request, I’d certainly grant it—on the condition that any deviation from the stated intent would indeed result in a ban—purely on the basis that it’s a ~free QA contribution and postmortem.

Re: Disabled at 22 million commits

#24

Post by lucb1e » Sun, Jul 02, 2023, 10:30 PM UTC

iBotPeaches wrote: post #7

> I decided to see how many commits GitHub (and git) could take before acting kind of wonky. At ~19 million commits (and counting) to master: it’s wonky. This just doesn't seem right to me. Why? Its obvious at some point you'll harm the service. If the goal was to test it, why not try locally with git.

> why not try locally with git.

Because you can't. GitHub is not open source, you'd need to steal the source code to try it locally. This comment is for educational purposes only, not trying to give OP ideas!!1

But you're right in spirit of course. Would be more interesting to install Forgejo/Gitea, GitLab, GitWeb, gitolite, TortoiseGit, etc., test them on various limits, and write that up in a nice blog post for magic internet points.

Re: Disabled at 22 million commits

#25

Post by renewiltord » Sun, Jul 02, 2023, 10:30 PM UTC

DocTomoe wrote: post #3

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: Disabled at 22 million commits

#26

Post by blowski » Sun, Jul 02, 2023, 10:32 PM UTC

I’m surprised at the reaction in these comments. Somebody curiously pushing the limits of a service to see what would happen is very much in the spirit of all hackers. Meanwhile, GitHub responded appropriately, and his write up agrees.

Re: Disabled at 22 million commits

#27

Post by rat9988 » Sun, Jul 02, 2023, 10:32 PM UTC

eyelidlessness wrote: post #20

ranting-moth wrote: post #14

More correct title would be "GitHub stopped abuse after 22M commits". There is absolutely nothing wrong with GH stopping that and it's very wrong to insinuate otherwise like OP is doing. Wouldn't be surprised if GH would permaban him.

I don’t think the author is trying to insinuate that GitHub is in the wrong in any way. They explicitly say they understand the decision, and anticipated that it would happen. I don’t want to quibble with the term “abuse”, because I think in this scenario it depends on whether intent is a factor and whether we should trust their stated intent. But depending on how you look at it, GitHub would be just as likely to ben…

It is malicious as he knows he will harm the service to be able to draw whatever conclusion. This is not a case where the end justifies the means.

Re: Disabled at 22 million commits

#28

Post by hayd » Sun, Jul 02, 2023, 10:32 PM UTC

MBCook wrote: post #9

So the author was purposefully trying to do the most extreme thing they could to see how git/GitHub act/break. I don’t blame GH at all. Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20230702215522/https://sh.itjust...

And used Github actions to do the (infinite loop?) compute.

Re: Disabled at 22 million commits

#29

Post by TacticalCoder » Sun, Jul 02, 2023, 10:34 PM UTC

Did the dude bring GH down at some point?

Re: Disabled at 22 million commits

#30

Post by ranting-moth » Sun, Jul 02, 2023, 10:38 PM UTC

eyelidlessness wrote: post #20

ranting-moth wrote: post #14

More correct title would be "GitHub stopped abuse after 22M commits". There is absolutely nothing wrong with GH stopping that and it's very wrong to insinuate otherwise like OP is doing. Wouldn't be surprised if GH would permaban him.

I don’t think the author is trying to insinuate that GitHub is in the wrong in any way. They explicitly say they understand the decision, and anticipated that it would happen. I don’t want to quibble with the term “abuse”, because I think in this scenario it depends on whether intent is a factor and whether we should trust their stated intent. But depending on how you look at it, GitHub would be just as likely to ben…

Load testing someone else's system resulting in a manual staff intervention due to potential system destabilization at 6am?

It's a wordplay to call that anything else than abuse.