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

Incident with Github.com [resolved]

githubstatus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

971–980 of 1001 posts

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#971

Post by edgyquant »

Scubabear68 wrote: post #863
edgyquant wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is though. Maybe you think they should be doing a better job but 12-24xing scale when you were already handling billions of commits is definitely understandable to me. It just does feel like they should have some way of ensuring customers, paying ones, don’t have to suffer so much.

First off, there aren’t that many developers in the world compared to consumers. Taking every developer in the world and multiplying by 12x-24x is not a-lot compared to many consumer oriented sites. Second, you can’t ignore the payloads, even an AI mostly text push is nothing compared to, say, 10 iPhone pictures or one moderate video.

Developers aren’t what scaled commits/pushes are they claim it went from ~1 billion a year to doing more than that a month

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#972

Post by [deleted] »

unknownfuture wrote: post #850
hombre_fatal wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it would be a mistake on your part to assume that everything in an organization, especially a large one like github, is a reflection of the capabilities of the state of the art in anything (AI, architecture, programming language, organizational management, operations, etc.). It's clear that updating the status page as quickly as possible isn't even something github cares about.

It would be a mistake to judge AI based on the performance of one of its strongest pushers and promoters? Interesting take.

[deleted]

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#973

Post by hombre_fatal »

unknownfuture wrote: post #850
hombre_fatal wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it would be a mistake on your part to assume that everything in an organization, especially a large one like github, is a reflection of the capabilities of the state of the art in anything (AI, architecture, programming language, organizational management, operations, etc.). It's clear that updating the status page as quickly as possible isn't even something github cares about.

It would be a mistake to judge AI based on the performance of one of its strongest pushers and promoters? Interesting take.

You're basically saying that before you can know if AI is useful to you and your dealings, AI must solve all of a given corporation's problems including all the human/organizational components and even the trivial ones like how serious Github is about updating their status page, something that probably came down to one guy.

It's just really weak "AI bad" snark.

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#974

Post by toastal »

_joel wrote: post #960
toastal wrote: post #952

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t let yourself get so locked in ideally, but still keeping the code online is still quite valuable to a lot of folks.

Sure, but you have to remember that a lot of companies use the issues/trackers/PR heavily as part of their development flow. If they go down, new work can't be scheduled.

Downstream often still relies on fetching & doesn’t care about any of the clerical stuff. Folks should consider self-hosting that clerical stuff anyhow given the independence you get & given MS GitHub’s uptime over the last several years.

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#975

Post by iamcoder18 »

jdelman wrote: post #925
iamcoder18 wrote: post #920

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Code.storage is able to handle large scales too: https://code.storage/ +-------------------------+-------------------------------+ | Total storage limit | Unlimited | | Git request rate limits | Unlimited (Seen: 500+/s/repo) | | API rate limits | Unlimited (Seen: 15k+/s) | | Max repos | Unlimited | | Concurrent writes | 30+ | | Repository size limit | 32TB | | Git LFS | Supported | | GitHub/3rd party sync | Supported…

So you work for them?

No, I just think it's a great concept and pricing seems good too.

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#976

Post by mooreds »

m4rtink wrote: post #931
rfgplk wrote: post #826

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tracks with some of my internal metrics. There are certain projects I'm tracking (solo dev or a small team of a few people) doing 500k LoC changes _per week_. There's one project that caught my attention in particular because they had something like 800k commits and around 7 million lines of code... and they created the repo in _July_. Also, yes I checked, the repo gradually grew over time they didn't just splat it i…

Nad is that actually useful for something in the end ? Or just useless rewrites and insane code duplication/bundling/vendoring ?

This is the question.

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#977

Post by defaultman »

Gigachad wrote: post #955
waterTanuki wrote: post #915

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone can re-create the hosting part of GitHub. This is not the difficult nor the expensive part. It's the actions. The compute to run them isn't cheap at scale nor is the amount of auditing you need to do for security and compliance if you want enterprise/government customers.

I don't think people asking for github alternatives are expecting unlimited actions for $5/month. It would be acceptable if they charged credits on top or let you host the runner on your own machine.

[dead]

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#978

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

dbmikus wrote: post #829
stusmall wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being the _the_ place for open source is what let them dominate the enterprise. Now that they dominate the enterprise, it'd make financial sense to put hard limits on the free tier. It's cynical but it would be foolish to lose that cash machine. It'd open them up for a competitor to slowly build up good will in open source then take them on in enterprise, but right now they are risking losing it all.

Big enterprises are on a different github deployment, so I doubt they are affected by this

> Big enterprises are on a different github deployment, so I doubt they are affected by this

Depends, some of them use GH Enterprise but many (surprisingly) don't.

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#979

Post by cortesoft »

dijksterhuis wrote: post #941
cortesoft wrote: post #811

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds great for personal projects, but what about open source work? Or if you want to collaborate with more than a few people?

https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/ gitlab ultimate (minus support) for free, so long as licenses for all projects are OSI approved.

Yeah this was kind of where I was going. Gitlab is great.

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#980

Post by Xirdus »

AlexandrB wrote: post #784
Xirdus wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest benefits of Git over predecessors were branching, 3-way merge, and history rewrites (in particular, rebase and squash). As much as Git fans wanted decentralization to be a major selling point, decentralization has never been a major selling point.

I think you understate what a big deal the decentralization was when Git came out. Back in the early 2000s, getting internet while out of the office was hard . 3G was in its infancy and expensive so you were at the mercy of finding a WiFi hotspot. Git's predecessors, such as SVN, were unusable without an internet connection to the server. Git (and Mercurial) allowed doing version control without an internet connectio…

I think you understate what a big deal branching was when Git came out. Back in the early 2000s, branching was hard. Git's predecessors, such as SVN, didn't have branching at all until much later, and even then the implementation was riddled with problems and quite often the repo entered state where branches cannot merge back to main (which was called trunk back then).

No matter how beneficial the ability to work offline was, branching was still far more important. It's a completely different order of magnitude. Git without offline capabilities would still be a massive success. Git without branching would not.

Post reply on HN