"first reported around 05:00 UK time"?
The web interface was wobbly all last weekend.
GitHub marked the start of the week with more than four hours of downtime, as GitHub Issues, Actions, Pages, Packages and API requests all reported "degraded performance." A problem on the world's most popular code repository and developer collaboration site was first reported around 05:00 UK time (04:00 UTC) this morning and …
What makes me laugh is that one of the selling points of git is it's distributed model.
A single website is probably not something your project should depend on.
Gitbucket and gitprep are self-hostable github clones - no idea to their application as a mirror.
Your repo is distributed, but the chances are your CI/CD pipeline isn't. And it relies on your origin repository which everyone agrees is the "source of truth" for your codebase. So lots of pipelines break if github is down, even though individual developers can carry on working just fine.
today's outage didn't stop my CI pipeline as it is on a locally controlled Jenkins PC and it is not difficult to point to a different repo if needed.
The big problem is it borked a pull request. I needed to push additional changes due to review comments. But the github pull request didn't update. I ended up pushing another change to force it to notice.
With git the code is safe (nicely distributed ...) but all the info, review comments etc are only in github (AFAIK). Migrating that extra stuff is where the pain is.
When I had a choice, I used gitlab since there is a locally hosted fallback option.
That Microsoft's purchase of GitHub would turn out so well for other repositories?
I pulled my projects the day the sale was announced. Episodes like this make mine and that of others seem very sensible.
Why is it the pretty well anything that they 'buy in' goes from good/reasonable to utter shite in no time at all?
“You are a dependency to our systems and if this keeps happening, many will say goodbye,” said developer Emad Mokhtar on Twitter.
No, I'm NOT talking about GitHub. I'm talking about organizations that allow unnecessary external dependencies into their build chains. This is particularly egregious in the case of GitHub, because, as already mentioned, git's "everyone has a master (oops! *primary*) copy" model is at least half of why almost no one uses subversion any more.
If you really must rely on GitHub's webhooks & such, go enterprise & have your own instance, isolated from *********** like this.
git's "everyone has a master (oops! *primary*) copy" model is at least half of why almost no one uses subversion any more.
Having used both (centralised, backed up repos), I find the biggest advantages of git over svn are various common operations that are local in git but remote in svn, plus merging in svn used to be crap (although I think it has improved).
The work flows this enables, combined with the tooling, makes it no contest for me, but I still have some nostalgia for svn...
They bought a company whose IT relies on a technology owned by Oracle ( actually Oracle bought it before it could become a threat and made sure it will never become one ).
Maybe they could migrate to AWS' Aurora. Supposed to be compatible, several times the IO throughput, and you can easily set up replication.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021