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

An update on GitHub availability

github.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 266 posts

Re: An update on GitHub availability

#91

Post by jansan »

whstl wrote: post #71
torben-friis wrote: post #62

Not enough attention is being put in the production/delivery mismatch. GitHub is claiming they require 30x scale due to the giant increase in repository creation, PRs, commits, etc. I have not seen a single product increase in features or quality as an end user, nor new significant products have come out in this period (other than the LLMs themselves). Where is all this code going?

I for one believe Microsoft when they say this code is going to Github... to die. Half of my friends is vibe-coding something but they can barely get the rest of the group chat to use it once. In companies, I see people vibe-coding "miracle apps" that fall under the smallest amount of scrutiny. Basically people are doing the same developers do when they say "I can do this in a weekend", which is getting a prototype s…

> Half of my friends is vibe-coding something but they can barely get the rest of the group chat to use it once.

Some people I know can't even explain what they are trying to create.

Re: An update on GitHub availability

#92

Post by otar »

I had to postpone a call with developers (in 2 different countries) because I didn't had access to the issues board, which is a single source of truth for us.

I understand the rapid growth (because of AI agents), but if such critical software service becomes unstable then it's time to migrate? Thinking about self-hosting GitLab.

Re: An update on GitHub availability

#93

Post by icy »

sikozu wrote: post #67
icy wrote: post #18

I'm biased (founder of tangled.org), but the future really should be federated forges. Host repositories on sovereign infra with global identity + federated "metadata" (issues, pulls, etc.). Global indices for this should be trivial to spin up so availability is never a concern (we're working towards this!).

I've never heard of this before, going to sign up and check it out!

Thanks! If you need anything, email me anirudh@!

Re: An update on GitHub availability

#94

Post by embedding-shape »

otar wrote: post #92

I had to postpone a call with developers (in 2 different countries) because I didn't had access to the issues board, which is a single source of truth for us. I understand the rapid growth (because of AI agents), but if such critical software service becomes unstable then it's time to migrate? Thinking about self-hosting GitLab.

> but if such critical software service becomes unstable then it's time to migrate?

Right way to think about this:

> If things we need/see as critical for our work are hosted on a platform with really bad reliability, it's time for us to migrate

My internet connection at home is really shit, and almost every week there is a multi-hour downtime for some reason, not to mention when La Liga games are on TV anything using Cloudflare is unavailable, so I've had to spend extra energy and time to setup things in a way so I can still work whenever this happens.

Re: An update on GitHub availability

#95

Post by imrozim »

2ndorderthought wrote: post #85
imrozim wrote: post #79

As a solo dev GitHub going down is scary all my code, all my history, one platform. This makes me want to keep local backups more seriously.

Yea or use another provider like codeberg

True but switching is not that easy when all your ci pipelines and integration on in GitHub.

Re: An update on GitHub availability

#96

Post by embedding-shape »

BlackFingolfin wrote: post #74

GitHub stability has been bad for me. And recently even the data they show me in the web has been unreliably. Since yesterday, me and several colleagues noticed that the pull request lists on the website are incomplete, across many repositories. For example, on https://github.com/gap-system/gap/pulls it says "Pull requests 78" in the "tab list", but the PR list view reports "35 open" (the number 78 is correct, and co…

> For example, on https://github.com/gap-system/gap/pulls it says "Pull requests 78" in the "tab list", but the PR list view reports "35 open" (the number 78 is correct, and confirmed by e.g. `gh pr list`)

Surely a scaling hack where they use "estimation" queries that return "kind of right" results instead of 100% correct data, as it's less load on the infrastructure. Not necessarily a bug as much a shit choice from product perspective.

Re: An update on GitHub availability

#97

Post by [deleted] »

maccard wrote: post #15
darkwater wrote: post #7

Glad that they released some data about new repo/issues/commits over the last years. It confirms what everyone else already believed from the outside: agents are putting a lot of extra, sudden pressure on GitHub. It's like a startup that is growing exponentially, with the difference that they already have a large user base to serve - and that keeps them in the bullseye - and probably a not-so-fast-moving organization…

What data is that? There's an unlabelled graph and a number at the current peak.

[deleted]

Re: An update on GitHub availability

#98

Post by everfrustrated »

derwiki wrote: post #8
mijoharas wrote: post #2

> we started working on path to multi cloud. Is this microsoft stating that they aren't able to get acceptable reliability from Azure? (I mean, I think a lot of us have heard that, but it's interesting to hear it from microsoft themselves).

It’s pretty damning. But as someone who has used Azure, I buy it.

Pretty damming that two Microsoft subsidiaries - GitHub and LinkedIn - either shelved their forced migration to Azure or are looking at non-Azure options.

Re: An update on GitHub availability

#99

Post by embedding-shape »

imrozim wrote: post #95
2ndorderthought wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea or use another provider like codeberg

True but switching is not that easy when all your ci pipelines and integration on in GitHub.

I don't think it's 100% compatible, but Gitea's/Forgejo's (which Codeberg runs on) own Action implementation is pretty much the same as GitHub Actions, with minor differences.
Post reply on HN