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

Incident with Actions and Pages

githubstatus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 407 posts

Re: Incident with Actions and Pages

#381

Post by vyrotek »

sgerenser wrote: post #332
vyrotek wrote: post #300

It's crazy to us how Github Actions have these issues but Azure DevOps never has these hiccups for us even though we hear they're on the "same infra". We're happy to stick with DevOps.

Who says Azure devops is on the same infra as GitHub? I mean, sure they're both hosted in Azure data centers, but there's very little else shared between them AFAIK. I used to work for Microsoft and I heard about the grand plans to merge the two but I don't think it ever really happened.

It's come up here in a few comments before.

Perhaps not 100% physically shared infra but there's references of architecture overlap such as "The GitHub-hosted runner application is a fork of the Azure Pipelines Agent."

https://docs.github.com/en/actions/concepts/runners/github-h...

https://github.com/actions/runner-images#about

A few threads where blips have affected both services.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42781922

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41001040

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35003741

Re: Incident with Actions and Pages

#382

Post by nomilk »

csomar wrote: post #378
nomilk wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it comes down to risk tolerance. For an established company that wants to avoid upsetting users at all costs, CI/CD makes sense. But for a nimble 'move fast and break things' startup, it can steal dev time for very little upside. Say a disaster happens and someone pushes to main without running tests, 9 times out of 10 it will be of ~zero consequence (either the code works first time, it was a cosmetic change…

That's not the purpose of a remote CI/CD. Your pipeline can be as strict or as loose as you wish. It's there to show you a log of the execution as it happened in a neutral environment (remote server). Basically, what you are suggesting is that everyone advertises their tests/builds run on slack? Also when two devs merge their changes, who compile/tests the master branch?

I see the benefit (it avoids the “works on my machine” problem), but my rails app isn’t too fancy and works on heroku ~100% of the time when it works on the dev machine. Making an intermediate build redundant (technically not entirely but it’s just not worth the effort).

For small teams it could be as simple as everyone agreeing to ensure tests pass on main before pushing to prod.

Re: Incident with Actions and Pages

#383

Post by hnlmorg »

re-thc wrote: post #372
hnlmorg wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never mentioned anything about status pages. Are you sure you’re replying to the right comment?

> I never mentioned anything about status pages. For context, the parent comment you replied to started with status page. Then are you talking about internal leaks or just guessing? Otherwise besides what's public how do you know they don't know?

It was two comments prior to mine that mentioned status pages.

Someone then replied about how it takes a bunch of HTTP response errors for problems to be alerted and thus I commented that application observability would consist of more than just waiting for users to hit errors.

Re: Incident with Actions and Pages

#384

Post by sunaookami »

gustavus wrote: post #355
suis_siva wrote: post #338

I commented on the other post, but GHA's awful reliability, ergonomics and performance have caused me to quit my job and work on https://harmont.dev .

Anyone else notice that the first/near top comment on every HackerNews post lately is someone saying something along the lines of "I had X problem so I went and started working on Y solution if you want to give it a look?" I don't want to delve into it any further - but something about it seems incongruous. It's not spam it's submarine marketing.

It's called growth hacking and it's indeed rude and annoying.

Re: Incident with Actions and Pages

#385

Post by xaerise »

yoyohello13 wrote: post #235
bouk wrote: post #14

Insane, we have to come up with contingency plans now for long-duration GitHub outages because we can't safely do deployments. For a service we're paying thousands of $ per year for even though we host runners ourselves...

Self host gitlab. If you already host runners it’s not a big lift.

Even if there is features that are similar, most of gitlabs features are for paying customers only.

Re: Incident with Actions and Pages

#386

Post by gbear605 »

surajrmal wrote: post #334
gbear605 wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Github has had horrible uptime for years, before agentic use was a thing. The killer was Microsoft.

It had uptime issues before Microsoft. They just got better at tracking and reporting after Microsoft.

My subjective experience was that it got a lot worse post-Microsoft. I could be misremembering though!

Re: Incident with Actions and Pages

#387

Post by cryo32 »

bouk wrote: post #271
cryo32 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should never entirely depend on a third party service for deployments. Been burned too many times on that one.

We could still deploy manually but it's suboptimal! And we're 'flying blind' without CI runs

   make test
Should work without CI

Re: Incident with Actions and Pages

#388

Post by bergie »

onion2k wrote: post #282
neya wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an eye opener. Think about it - today, it was a mistake. But, what if it really happened? What if you really lost access to all your years of hard work? It's a wake up call. A blessing in disguise to store what matters to you the most locally, backed up offline. Never trust any single provider. Be it MS or Google or Apple. RAID is the way.

People should use something that keeps a local copy of their code and just copies it to Github and to other contributors with a sync process to push and pull changes. Some sort of 'distributed source control system' maybe. Then people would only need a 'hub' to connect to people, and it'd be easier to move somewhere else.

I'm looking at setting up rngit mirrors of all my repos on our boat NAS. Conceivably it also allows issue tracking and collaboration without centralized infra

https://reticulum.network/manual/git.html#mirroring-reposito...

Re: Incident with Actions and Pages

#389

Post by trollbridge »

stuff4ben wrote: post #193
trollbridge wrote: post #172

I switched to GitLab a while ago and then spun it up locally. Something’s wrong when my own infrastructure is more reliable than Microsoft’s.

Let us know when your infrastructure sees the load that Microsoft's does and how you've handled it.

The entire premise of hosting locally is you control the load.

Re: Incident with Actions and Pages

#390

Post by hsbauauvhabzb »

lazystone wrote: post #155
hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds good until you see their cvedetails page

Hide it behind VPN, so it's not accessible from outside.

Now patching becomes a responsibility, unless your organisation is willing to run knowingly vulnerable software.
Post reply on HN