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

GitHub was having issues

githubstatus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–96 of 96 posts

Re: GitHub was having issues

#91

Post by hughrr »

vergessenmir wrote: post #89
Jenk wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> GoCD Don't. Just don't. I'm assuming that the fundamental flaws* of GoCD haven't been fixed, based on the knowledge that in 2015 they (ThoughtWorks) still hadn't addressed them, and I think 5-6 years isn't long enough for them to be addressed. *Pipelines, as modeled in GoCD, were so inflexible that any kind of flow resulted in having many, many, pipelines configured. To the point that the number pipelines you opera…

Hate to pile on GoCD. But I second this. In 2015 they were a contender when Jenkins was showing it's age and Gitlab was in its infancy. Development was fairly stagnant and felt 'closed' to external contributions. I was hopeful, but ultimately disappointed.

Thanks. This sort of stuff is why I come here :)

Re: GitHub was having issues

#93

Post by toper-centage »

grumple wrote: post #62
nik736 wrote: post #4

What's the reason these Git services have so many issues all the time?

Just like every company, they sometimes have things break, push out code that doesn't behave as expected, hit limits on various services they weren't aware of, etc. The complexity of technical systems is massive especially when they are constantly changing. It's not helped that these companies have high availability requirements and need to be online 100% of the time even when making updates. Makes me want to do embe…

I love github as a product but for the past months, issues are a weekly occurance, often multiple times a week, and always in the middle of the day (Europe).

Re: GitHub was having issues

#94

Post by mouldysammich »

pm90 wrote: post #73
mouldysammich wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theres gerrit and reviewboard, both of which I would consider quite nice. I dont know reviewable so it might have more sauce than the recommendations

The UI is much nicer than gerrit (or at least the gerrit UI I knew from 5-6 years ago not sure if they have changed). It’s more “GitHub”-y. It’s a bit confusing at first but once you get into it it’s pretty damn powerful. Side note, I honestly seriously think we need much better tooling than just these 2 for code reviews.

Gerrit has gotten a new UI in the last few years as far as i know. I wouldnt nesecarily describe it as pretty, but its my personal favourite review system

Re: GitHub was having issues

#95

Post by wjossey »

twh270 wrote: post #90
wjossey wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the OP but in a continuous release process you treat main (master) as “the source of truth” and merges to main trigger a new release to production. At the company I work at, we have about 160 full time engineers with about half our repos on continuous release. We average right now somewhere around 50-55 releases per day, with some hot repos getting up towards 20 releases per day on their own. The point of small r…

I envy you... my client has a horrible process with lots of manual steps and prod deployment every two weeks. Can you describe at a high level your development toolset, CI/CD toolchain and workflow, and deployment environment?

Sure thing.

Devs develop locally. Can test their code (manual test and most automated tests).

They push and open a PR. They can deploy ephemeral environments with any dependent microservices spun up along side. This is an in house tool we developed that builds and deploys ephemeral docker, CDK, and terraform based apps.

We then run CI automation against their PRs. This can include E2E tests courtesy of these ephemeral environments.

Once their PR is green and signed off, they merge to master. We’ve done some wizardry behind the scenes so that their code is live in production in around 3 minutes.

They verify their changes in prod and we run any automated regression tests against prod.

Next person merges as they see fit.

That’s it! It’s not easy to get to that point, but once you’re there it’s a great process. We’ll have capacity issues once we get up to 30 or 40 releases per day in a repo, but I’ve got some ideas about how to work around that.

Re: GitHub was having issues

#96

Post by codeapprove »

pm90 wrote: post #73
mouldysammich wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theres gerrit and reviewboard, both of which I would consider quite nice. I dont know reviewable so it might have more sauce than the recommendations

The UI is much nicer than gerrit (or at least the gerrit UI I knew from 5-6 years ago not sure if they have changed). It’s more “GitHub”-y. It’s a bit confusing at first but once you get into it it’s pretty damn powerful. Side note, I honestly seriously think we need much better tooling than just these 2 for code reviews.

I'm building a much better code review for tool for GitHub, check out https://codeapprove.com

It combines concepts from GitHub, Gerrit, and other good review tools out there to make it easy and fast to reach consensus (which is what it's all about).

If you want to hear more you can email me at sam at habosa dot com

Post reply on HN