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

Incident with Issues and Webhooks – Resolved

githubstatus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 275 posts

Re: Incident with Issues and Webhooks – Resolved

#221

Post by tommy_axle »

ethin wrote: post #157

Honestly, if GH keeps getting worse I may need to migrate away to Forgejo or something. The problem is GHA... Does anyone know of a service that is better and doesn't charge me an arm and a leg for runners (particularly MacOS ones)? I've been wanting to shift away from GHA for ages (because I hate it) but I don't know of any alternatives that are quite like it (or the costs involved).

If self-hosting the runners too then it's doable. Not 100% sure for Forgejo but with Gitea and act_runner it's possible and pretty economical if you have an extra mac mini.

Re: Incident with Issues and Webhooks – Resolved

#222

Post by SoftTalker »

It's almost as if some people don't understand that it's possible to develop software without using github.

The people who warned about building dependencies on third party services are enjoying some schadenfreude now.

Ironic that a source code control system that was designed to be distributed is now presenting problems due to the failure of centralized services.

Re: Incident with Issues and Webhooks – Resolved

#224

Post by evanelias »

nvme0n1p1 wrote: post #147
the_sleaze_ wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you need to broaden your focus here - I can't really remember any significant downtime before the Microsoft acquisition and the data supports my memories. Microsoft bought Github and migrated to Azure, which is explains the findings. The query performance was fine before they started serving from Azure. I mean honestly, as though there isn't one single person competent enough to read some logs and horizontall…

I don't know why this is downvoted. The data backs you up: https://damrnelson.github.io/github-historical-uptime/

I'm skeptical about that page's accuracy. For example, if you go to the breakdown tab, it shows Actions having 100% availability when the graph starts (Apr 2016), yet Actions didn't even exist until late 2018, and wasn't GA until a full year after that. So if the math behind the "average" tab is treating NULLs as 100% uptime, this just isn't a correct measurement.

The page also notes it obtains its data from the official status page, but big tech companies have been known to under-report outages. My general sense is they've gotten better about this in recent years; if so, that means historical data will give an erroneously rosy picture of uptime.

Re: Incident with Issues and Webhooks – Resolved

#226

Post by sgt »

eddyg wrote: post #77
AlexB138 wrote: post #15

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…

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…

They can easily spin this as massive success. Uptime will only matter for a small number of users. Probably not true, but not far from the truth either. I'm a heavy Github user and I can't really say it's THAT bad. If something doesn't work, you can always fill your time with something else.

Re: Incident with Issues and Webhooks – Resolved

#227

Post by the_sleaze_ »

philistine wrote: post #116
the_sleaze_ wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you need to broaden your focus here - I can't really remember any significant downtime before the Microsoft acquisition and the data supports my memories. Microsoft bought Github and migrated to Azure, which is explains the findings. The query performance was fine before they started serving from Azure. I mean honestly, as though there isn't one single person competent enough to read some logs and horizontall…

I mean, are any of the other forges, which I presume are also seeing logarithmic increase in commits, also failing as hard as Github?

I totally agree, you should expect a similar increase and degradation in Gitlab which we do not.

Re: Incident with Issues and Webhooks – Resolved

#228

Post by munk-a »

davideg wrote: post #218
munk-a wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Working in an organization without a mono-repository I've actually found it extremely difficult to keep a tab on PRs and issues across multiple repositories. For a problem that should be resolved by a "For me" page that just lists out all your active incoming and outgoing PRs their multi-page solution involving search filters that often need to be reset feels extremely weak. I've worked on large multi-tenant solution…

Do you mean like https://github.com/pulls and https://github.com/issues ? These are in the top left hamburger menu from the Home dashboard (edit: actually on all pages).

Hey, that's awesome and nevermind me. I just got stumbled by their UI.

There's probably a fair argument about how discoverable these are (especially given their labeling as "All Issues" and "All Pull Requests") but that tip is quite helpful to me personally. Thanks for sharing it, I really appreciate it!

Re: Incident with Issues and Webhooks – Resolved

#229

Post by cedws »

Anyone have a nice way of mirroring between two forges such as GitHub and GitLab? I know git can push to multiple remotes but that only solves the problem for me, I still have to mirror commits from others. I want to keep repo configs in sync too.

Re: Incident with Issues and Webhooks – Resolved

#230

Post by the_sleaze_ »

AlexB138 wrote: post #75
the_sleaze_ wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you need to broaden your focus here - I can't really remember any significant downtime before the Microsoft acquisition and the data supports my memories. Microsoft bought Github and migrated to Azure, which is explains the findings. The query performance was fine before they started serving from Azure. I mean honestly, as though there isn't one single person competent enough to read some logs and horizontall…

> I think you need to broaden your focus here - I can't really remember any significant downtime before the Microsoft acquisition and the data supports my memories. This is the opposite of my recollection, actually. I distinctly remember having conversations about Github struggling to scale well before MS was involved, and people claiming that MS had somehow saved Github because it had stabilized and begun adding fea…

> I distinctly remember having conversations about Github struggling to scale well before MS was involved

Do you have any sources to back your claim up? At what point did Github fail to scale their search endpoints?

> This may be correct

It is.

Post reply on HN