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

71–80 of 407 posts

Re: Incident with Actions and Pages

#71

Post by heeton »

kylegalbraith wrote: post #52
kminehart wrote: post #26

Are there any GitHub Actions-compatible CI services out there that don't rely on their infrastructure? I know of depot's but no others; are these resilient to these outages or do they still lose functionality? I imagine the latter but I don't know.

Founder of Depot here. To my knowledge, we are the first engine to support different syntaxes in this compatible way via Depot CI [0]. Great time to try it out and let us know your thoughts! We’ve built a lot of cool stuff into it like parallel steps, custom images, and a full CLI/API interface so you can literally everything without going into the web app. [0] https://depot.dev

As someone who partially uses depot but was still affected by this github issue, we obviously haven't moved over enough. We use your runners but github is still blocking us.

Hope you don't mind the public ask, it seems useful for others.

If we're using depot runners, and want to use them directly, or move off of github actions being the controller for when things run: what do you suggest?

Trigger the workflows directly on depot via CLI?

Re: Incident with Actions and Pages

#72

Post by mohsen1 »

heeton wrote: post #18
mohsen1 wrote: post #15

oh man spent so much time trying to debug what's going on. I have a complex setup with GitHub Actions and self hosted runners so I thought it's something broken in my CI setup

Ugh, same. 30 mins with 2 devs trying to figure it out before they posted an update.

Now PRs are piling up! https://github.com/mohsen1/tsz/pulls

Re: Incident with Actions and Pages

#74

Post by hsbauauvhabzb »

sofixa wrote: post #28
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...

Depending on how many thousands of $ per year, it would probably be cheaper and more reliable to self-host GitLab. It's better in terms of organisational structure (you can have one, including access and secret inheritance), and (personal view) Gitlab-CI is better than GitHub Actions because it doesn't push you towards a JavaScript/NPM style dependency hell. And it's actually fairly easy to self-hosted, with options…

Sounds good until you see their cvedetails page

Re: Incident with Actions and Pages

#76

Post by Xirdus »

ramon156 wrote: post #48
pistoriusp wrote: post #41

Whilst you're waiting for it to come back, try out AGENT-CI (which is a project I built.), which runs GitHub Actions on your machine: https://agent-ci.dev . (Open source, etc.) No, it's not like "act," because it uses the standard Github runner, the difference is that the control plane is an emulation of api.github.com, because of this we can do all kinds of nice things: Caching in ~0 ms. Pause on failure, so you can…

"Its not like act, because we can add AI" Is what it boils down to. > codex "Fix this pipeline, use `act` to verify your changes"

I had extremely bad experience trying to setup act on my Macbook. If this is something that actually works (and doesn't steal my credentials), I'm willing to try it despite AI non-features.

Re: Incident with Actions and Pages

#77

Post by sarchertech »

chilmers wrote: post #53
jampekka wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The instability started well before vibecoding, in around 2018-2019, shortly after the Microsoft acquisition. https://damrnelson.github.io/github-historical-uptime/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47591928

This gets posted every time GitHub is down. This chart is not accurate. It is based on data scraped from GitHub's status page and that data is missing historical incidents from the pre-Microsoft era.

Yeah, it’s not even consistent with their own incident history. I spot checked it and consistently found incidents with downtime/elevated error rates in months listed as 100.00000% uptime on that chart.

Re: Incident with Actions and Pages

#78

Post by sofixa »

hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #74
sofixa wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on how many thousands of $ per year, it would probably be cheaper and more reliable to self-host GitLab. It's better in terms of organisational structure (you can have one, including access and secret inheritance), and (personal view) Gitlab-CI is better than GitHub Actions because it doesn't push you towards a JavaScript/NPM style dependency hell. And it's actually fairly easy to self-hosted, with options…

Sounds good until you see their cvedetails page

I mean, the GitHub Actions supply chain risks and attacks definitely compensate for any GitLab security vulnerabilities you can think of.

Re: Incident with Actions and Pages

#80

Post by kevinminehart »

kylegalbraith wrote: post #52
kminehart wrote: post #26

Are there any GitHub Actions-compatible CI services out there that don't rely on their infrastructure? I know of depot's but no others; are these resilient to these outages or do they still lose functionality? I imagine the latter but I don't know.

Founder of Depot here. To my knowledge, we are the first engine to support different syntaxes in this compatible way via Depot CI [0]. Great time to try it out and let us know your thoughts! We’ve built a lot of cool stuff into it like parallel steps, custom images, and a full CLI/API interface so you can literally everything without going into the web app. [0] https://depot.dev

Are you able to bring your own runners? Our org is heavily invested in self-hosted runners at this point and have gotten a pretty tremendous value from it. I think we'd be wise to get away from GitHub's control plane but keep running jobs in our own infra.
Post reply on HN