[HN Gopher] GitHub pull requests were down
___________________________________________________________________
GitHub pull requests were down
Author : lr0
Score : 103 points
Date : 2025-08-05 15:44 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.githubstatus.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.githubstatus.com)
| SwiftyBug wrote:
| Right in the middle of a huge rebase. Great!
| AdventureMouse wrote:
| It's never a good time for GitHub to be down!
| pelagicAustral wrote:
| Good thing I always commit directly to the main branch.
| mattwad wrote:
| this is broken too!
| escapecharacter wrote:
| They must mean their local main branch.
| RonanSoleste wrote:
| No the remote one. No need for a local branch.
| mmastrac wrote:
| Good thing we're using a shared Samba drive and editing files
| directly without locks!
| SparkyMcUnicorn wrote:
| Project_v2_final3 is looking good, but remember to grab the
| new actionscript files out of Project_v2_final4 as well.
| hnuser123456 wrote:
| Also the foo_bar method from v1 worked better so pull
| that back in
| rwmj wrote:
| You joke, but when I was doing my start-up we made good
| money on the side from monitoring websites to detect when
| the designers had pushed regressions to the live site. We
| would keep track of change requests that were filed and
| resolved, then scripts would monitor the sites to see if
| any earlier changes had been backed out. (Getting the
| designers to use version control was considered to be in
| the "too hard" bucket. This was back in the mid 2000s.)
| yieldcrv wrote:
| This is how to collect low to mid 5 figures a year doing
| bug bounties too
|
| Its all about the regressions, not finding anything novel
| d-lisp wrote:
| If this isn't cosplay I'd be glad to know how you do so.
| ZiiS wrote:
| Still better than CVS then /s
| taude wrote:
| So glad we never bothered to migrate from Visual Source
| Safe
| vehemenz wrote:
| Make sure everyone has caching disabled, for maximum effect
| tetha wrote:
| We have post-its with file names on a wall in the office.
| You take one down if you edit the file, and put it back up
| when you're done. Easy.
|
| Though I wish I was entirely kidding. ~12 years ago or so
| we did that if one of two parallel development teams had to
| modify a message of the network protocol to avoid
| incompatibilities and merge problems.
|
| Mind you, these were SVN merges. I can't even verbalize my
| feelings about SVN merges but by a mixture of laughing and
| groaning in pain, like if you stubbed your toe in a
| painful, but entirely funny way.
| spicybright wrote:
| Keeping it when tech can't keep up is genuinely a good
| hack for any kind of engineering. Physical lock out tag
| out on industrial machines for instance. Passing paper
| notes/wooden blocks in air traffic control towers to see
| who's responsible for what even if computers go down.
| xorcist wrote:
| What is this eternal meme about merges in svn being
| harder than in other tools? Git used _literally_ the same
| merge algorithm, even if that has changed a bit since
| then, and merge conflicts are not something a tool can 't
| just magically make disappear. If you want concurrent
| edits (the c in cvs), conflicts come in the same package.
| Various algortihms can supply their own dose of magic,
| but they're more similar than different (minus a few
| special cases such as rerere in git).
| tetha wrote:
| My interpretation within that company: You know this new
| idea of "If it's painful, do it more"? People in that
| company didn't do that in the SVN days or earlier,
| because merges were painful. Thus, merges filled a sprint
| if they had to be done. This made sense if you came from
| CSV or nothing, tbh.
|
| Git in turn made branches easier, causing merges to be
| more prevalent and developers overall learned to merge
| more, merge more often.
| davey48016 wrote:
| That's a single point of failure. If you email code changes
| around and use an email client that copies everything
| offline, then the history of your code base is distributed
| across all of your developers' laptops.
| jaredsohn wrote:
| Good thing we just SSH into production and make the changes
| live.
| gloxkiqcza wrote:
| Vibe coding nonetheless #gofastandbreakthings
| redserk wrote:
| Subtle Elixir/Erlang advocacy here.
| rwmj wrote:
| You're using Ansible?
| hdgvhicv wrote:
| Do it manual you can screw up one server at a time
|
| Run ansible and you can screw it all up
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| rsync is all you need ;)
| jaredsohn wrote:
| nah - ftp
|
| or run vi from ssh
| antihero wrote:
| Guess it's time to embrace AI.
| dorian-graph wrote:
| Context: https://www.finalroundai.com/blog/github-ceo-thomas-
| dohmke-w...
| sleepydog wrote:
| ... or get out.
| njovin wrote:
| Props to Github for having an accurate status page. AWS and
| Google should take note.
| ietktnz wrote:
| Status page says "Incident with Pull Requests". Pull requests
| status is listed as "Normal". Status text says issue with
| degraded performance for Webhooks and Issues, does not mention
| Pull Requests.
|
| I would give that a 5/10 accuracy at best!
| samgranieri wrote:
| they've updated the page since then. Take a look
| ericyan wrote:
| The status page has been updated. PR and webhook statused red
| and now listed as "Incident".
|
| (Disclosure: GitHub employee)
| hardworker02 wrote:
| Uh.. pub?
| crinkly wrote:
| Already in it. Was a premonition.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| GitHub gives everyone an extra long lunch.
| trashburger wrote:
| Early EOD for me!
| arccy wrote:
| I guess they let copilot review their code
| hiccuphippo wrote:
| Maybe they are trying vibeops now.
| jennyholzer wrote:
| At Microsoft vibeops is an age old tradition.
| shakna wrote:
| Well, the CEO did say to embrace AI or get out of code, 2 days
| ago... And MS previously said AI is not-optional for their
| devs...
| crinkly wrote:
| No excuse. git-send-email out and stop slacking :)
| KoboldAdvocate wrote:
| Not a good look when they're heavily pushing AI agents.
| thimabi wrote:
| I'll be waiting expectantly for the post mortem of this. How
| ironic would it be if this issue was caused by a pull request
| itself?
| tzury wrote:
| https://www.githubstatus.com
|
| (+WebHooks) (+Issues)
| Imustaskforhelp wrote:
| This is why I recommend decentralized protocols like radical or I
| guess I hope that tangled.sh could fix this stuff too.
|
| I am not sure about tangled.sh, I might ask them in their discord
| about this now y'know.
| lionkor wrote:
| Git is a decentralized protocol, it's just incomplete IMO
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Git has a protocol called email.
| immibis wrote:
| Indeed push/pull wasn't even the original design intention
| of Git. It was a tool for one person to manage trees of
| emailed patch files.
| pmontra wrote:
| There is git format-patch to create a diff and git send-email
| [2] to mail it to another developer and git-am [3] to apply
| the patches from a mailbox.
|
| The Linux kernel developers have been using that workflow for
| a lot of time. Maybe still now.
|
| [1] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch
|
| [2] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-send-email
|
| [3] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-am
| lucasoshiro wrote:
| > The Linux kernel developers have been using that workflow
| for a lot of time
|
| Yes, they do. Git itself is also developed that way.
|
| Btw, you don't need to use format + send-email, send-email
| calls format-patch under the hood
| rightbyte wrote:
| Communication layer agnostic text files is a killer feature
| of git. What MS is doing with Github is typical EEE.
| lucasoshiro wrote:
| > it's just incomplete
|
| Why?
| RGBCube wrote:
| Radicle.xyz fixes this with COBs (Collaborative Objects).
| They're stored inside your git repo as normal objects, and
| benefit from its p2p mechanism as well. It's the true
| sovereign forge.
| ashwinsundar wrote:
| Git and GitHub are not the same thing. git repos can live
| independently of GitHub
|
| What features do you feel like git is missing?
| nwatson wrote:
| Set up a second remote on Bitbucket or other and synchronize
| through that. Pipelined, etc might be missing but at least
| development can proceed.
| ItsABytecode wrote:
| I didn't think the code I just merged was that bad
| noreplydev wrote:
| https://www.githubstatus.com/ "git operations: degraded", my git
| operations are degraded by default
| rileymichael wrote:
| did all of the devs leave?
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/github-ceo-developers-embrac...
| xyse53 wrote:
| Devs leaving can often be a stability boost :)
| doubled112 wrote:
| Right up until it isn't.
| stevefolta wrote:
| But if that's what they want, they may be driving out the
| exact wrong subset of their devs.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| cheaper than layoffs.
| ryandrake wrote:
| > Instead of selling products based on helpful features and
| letting users decide, executives often deploy scare tactics
| that essentially warn people they will become obsolete if they
| don't get on the AI bandwagon. For instance, Julia Liuson,
| another executive at Microsoft, which owns GitHub, recently
| warned employees that "using AI is no longer optional."
|
| So many clowns. It's like everyone's reading from the same
| script/playbook. Nothing says "this tool is useful" quite like
| forcing people to use it.
| bogzz wrote:
| It definitely feels like the imbecility of the corporate
| class has reached new levels.
| conradfr wrote:
| AI is not for developers only!
| lrvick wrote:
| AI is not for developers, it is for people that do not
| want to learn how to be developers but want to be paid
| like them.
| MrGilbert wrote:
| > It's like everyone's reading from the same script/playbook.
|
| I'd assume that many CEO are driven by the same urge to
| please the board. And depending on your board, there might be
| people on it who spend many hours per week on LinkedIn, and
| see all the success stories around AI, maybe experienced
| something first hand.
|
| Good news: It's, from my estimate, only a phase. Like when
| blockchain hit, and everyone wanted to be involved. This time
| - and that worries me - the ressources involved are more
| expensive, though. There might be a stronger incentive for
| people to "get their money back". I haven't thought about the
| implications yet.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| It's not like blockchain. Blockchain legitimately made
| things slower and less useful for dubious benefits.
|
| AI is more like the early web. There is definite value that
| people can see, but no one really knows how to monetize
| beyond the incredibly obvious 'sell people access to it',
| so everyone is throwing spaghetti at the wall waiting for
| it to stick. When someone gets it to stick, there will be a
| giant amount of money coming at them, but until then there
| will be a ton of people with sauce all over their faces
| looking like idiots.
| llbbdd wrote:
| Upvoted to save you from the negatives because I too am
| tired of seeing the comparison to blockchain. I'm not
| sure where it even comes from other than just being
| another recent hype train people remember, but blockchain
| settled into a relatively tiny niche. The most basic
| deployment of LLMs / AI by comparison is instantly,
| obviously more useful than that.
| depr wrote:
| People say this a lot, please the board. But why would so
| many boards be hype-driven and CEO's be rational? It might
| just as well be the C-suite themselves who are the source
| of it.
| ryandrake wrote:
| The CEOs and execs also seem to be feeding and sustaining
| the hype themselves:
|
| CEO1: "This technology is the biggest technical leap in
| my lifetime!"
|
| CEO2: "Oh yea? Well, this technology is more useful than
| electricity!"
|
| CEO3: "Oh yea?? This technology is more impactful than
| the invention of fire!"
|
| VP1: "This technology is going to really help improve
| productivity!"
|
| VP2: "Come on! This technology is going to let one person
| do the work of 100!"
|
| VP3: "Surely you jest! Without using this technology, you
| might as well not even try to earn a living!"
| charcircuit wrote:
| People are biased to using tools they are familiar with. The
| idea that if a tool was useful people would use it simply
| false. In order to avoid being disrupted, extra effort needs
| to be made to get people to learn new tools.
| badosu wrote:
| Reminder that Github _still_ does not support IPv6:
| https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/10539
| sethops1 wrote:
| I contacted GitHub support about this and they assured me
| they understand it's a priority and are working on it. Three
| years ago.
| soraminazuki wrote:
| From the CEO's article referenced in that post [1]:
|
| > the rise of AI in software development signals the need for
| computer science education to be reinvented as well.
|
| > Teaching in a way that evaluates rote syntax or memorization
| of APIs is becoming obsolete
|
| He thinks computer science is about memorizing syntax and APIs.
| No wonder he's telling developers to embrace AI or quit their
| careers if he believes the entire field is that shallow. Not
| the best person to take advice from.
|
| It's also hilarious how he downplays fundamental flaws of LLMs
| as something AI zealots, _the truly smart people_ , can
| overcome by producing so much AI slop that they turn from
| skeptics into ...drumroll... _AI strategists_. lol
|
| [1]: https://ashtom.github.io/developers-reinvented
| axelpacheco wrote:
| Give your best estimate on how much dollar value of creation is
| wasted every hour GitHub PRs are down
| StarlaAtNight wrote:
| One MILLION dollars _puts pinky to corner of mouth_
| bob1029 wrote:
| I estimate that on some days an outage like this could
| ultimately save some businesses money.
|
| There's a lot of cowboy development going on out there. Why not
| take this opportunity to talk to your customers for a bit? Make
| sure you're still building the right things.
| henryfjordan wrote:
| At a startup, sure.
|
| At any decently-sized org, the developers are not allowed to
| talk to customers on their own accord.
| bob1029 wrote:
| I've never worked somewhere I couldn't email a customer as
| long as the team was CC'd. This is a bit of a circular
| problem because if you don't get exposed to the customer in
| some capacity you'll never get good at working with them.
|
| If the business is afraid to let you email the customer,
| you might need to work on your communications skills and go
| through some intentional demonstration efforts. For
| example, "Good morning <boss>, here's a draft of what I
| think we should send <CTO's name @ customer> regarding
| their feedback on the last build.".
|
| That's literally all it takes to get into the game. Don't
| ask for permission to write the draft because then your
| managers will think it's gonna be this big ordeal and
| they'll definitely say no.
| henryfjordan wrote:
| At a B2B, I might agree with you.
|
| At a B2C, I would not email a customer directly without
| sign-off. We have marketing teams, research teams, comms,
| customer support, etc. I would be stepping on so many
| toes, and risking brand reputation, if I were to interact
| with our customers.
| Hackbraten wrote:
| > There's a lot of cowboy development going on out there
|
| This has been the case before VCSes existed.
| jennyholzer wrote:
| $2000
| darth_avocado wrote:
| Dupe: https://github.com/github/site-policy/pull/582
| kvemkon wrote:
| Thread on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44799435
| dang wrote:
| Since the current submission has the clearer URL, we'll merge
| the comments hither. Thanks!
| greenie_beans wrote:
| don't wanna be spreading fake news, but i wonder if this is
| related to a cloudflare issue? i've been unable to login to
| cloudflare for the past ~30 minutes. and:
| https://www.cloudflarestatus.com/
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| This is strange: I was just having issues with Pull Requests on
| _BitBucket_ too. Coincidence, actually?
| aduwah wrote:
| It's all a central svn in AWS
| politelemon wrote:
| Does GitHub development happen on GitHub? And if the fix for
| broken pull requests requires a pull request would they have a
| way to review it...
| naikrovek wrote:
| if GitHub Enterprise Server is anything to go by, they build
| (almost) everything for containers, and the entire site is
| hosted by containers managed by Nomad. So there are probably
| lots of older images around that they can fall back on if the
| latest image of any container causes problems.
|
| How they would deploy the older container, I don't know.
|
| A lot of this is guesswork, I don't work for them or anything.
| And I know that GHES in the way that my employer manages it is
| very unlike the way that GitHub host github.com, so everything
| i've assumed could be wrong.
| gimenete wrote:
| I worked there for 3 years and yes GitHub development happens
| on github.com. Of course there's ways to deploy and rollback
| changes while the site is down but that's very unusual. The
| typical flow happens in github.com and uses the regular
| primitives everybody uses: prs, ci checks, etc.
|
| The pipeline for deploying the monolith doesn't happen in
| GitHub Actions though but in a service based in jenkins.
|
| Fun fact: playbooks for incidents used to be hosted in GitHub
| too but we moved them after an incident that made impossible to
| access them while it lasted.
| coryrc wrote:
| > that made impossible to access them
|
| Couldn't they just be checked out by cron on any number of
| local machines hosting Apache?
| gimenete wrote:
| I don't remember clearly where we moved them. It was
| probably to something owned by Google (because GitHub uses
| Google Workspaces) or Microsoft (for obvious reasons).
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| weird... this is redirecting me to `Privacy Statement Updates
| September 2022 #582`
|
| https://github.com/github/site-policy/pull/582
| crazysim wrote:
| It was probably just an example.
| csh602 wrote:
| Seems total downtime was from 15:51 to 16:14 UTC
| sidcool wrote:
| It's up now.
| eats_indigo wrote:
| Given Github's critical role in software engineering delivery,
| their SLA commitments are really quite poor, perhaps
| unacceptable.
| graemep wrote:
| It is critical for those who choose to use it.
|
| If you deliberately decide to use a system that introduces a
| single point of failure into a decentralised system, you have
| to live with the consequences.
|
| From their point of view, unless they start losing paying users
| over this, they have no incentive to improve. I assume
| customers are happy with the SLA, otherwise why use Github?
| yunwal wrote:
| Network effects are quite strong
| harrison_clarke wrote:
| luckily, git itself works pretty well when there's an outage
|
| sucks for people that use issues/PRs for coordination and had a
| planning meeting scheduled, though
| clysm wrote:
| Why is this linking to a merged PR, or a PR at all, and not a
| status page?
| organsnyder wrote:
| It must be back up!
| bdcravens wrote:
| HN sure has changed. A few years ago there would be at least a
| dozen comments about installing Gitlab, including one major
| subthread started by someone from Gitlab.
| factorialboy wrote:
| Not just HN, Gitlab has perhaps changed as well.
| lrvick wrote:
| We recommend Codeberg/Forgejo now since it is better in every
| way, and Gitlab went corpo.
| NewJazz wrote:
| Gitlab was always for profit.
|
| And forgejo doesn't have feature parity at all with gitlab.
| Neither does github, for that matter.
|
| Just take a look at how to push container images from a cicd
| pipeline in gitlab vs. Forgejo.
| fmbb wrote:
| What's the difference?
|
| Pushing images is a oneliner.
| NewJazz wrote:
| In gitlab, yes (well, two lines, login then push). In
| forgejo, there is no cicd token that gives you scoped
| access to the built in container registry. You must
| create a long lived token and add it as a secret to the
| repo you want to push from.
|
| See here: https://mteixeira.wordpress.com/2025/02/03/my-
| self-hosted-fo...
| mattigames wrote:
| "for profit" is not the boolean some people think it is,
| the lengths some companies go vary wildly, specially among
| small companies, to put it in crass terms, some people
| would sell their own mothers and offer a discount if you
| take their grandma; while others wouldn't even dare to sell
| a single picture of either.
| Elucalidavah wrote:
| Are those any better than self-hosted gitlab, or do you only
| mean central-hosted usage?
| NewJazz wrote:
| Codeberg is central hosted so I think they mean in general.
| Tostino wrote:
| I wouldn't touch Gitlab at this point. I didn't change. They
| did.
| dewey wrote:
| Which is probably good, as otherwise they would be dead.
| Building products for self-hosting HN users isn't really a
| big money maker.
| john01dav wrote:
| I use gitea on a server in my basement because I don't trust
| these hosted solutions to not use my code for LLM training or who
| knows what else.
| zaphar wrote:
| Me too. I have it mirroring stuff from github too for occasions
| just like this.
| keb_ wrote:
| I've got this feeling that the endless feature creep of Github
| has begun to cause rot of core essential features. Up until only
| recently, the PR review tab performed so poorly it was
| practically useless for large PRs.
| dewey wrote:
| GitHub in essence is still pretty much the same, there's
| products that have feature creep but I wouldn't say GitHub does
| that.
|
| I can't say that I'm having issues with the performance either.
| I work with large PRs too (Especially if there's vendored
| dependencies) but I never ran into a show stopping performance
| issue that would make it "useless".
| davidspiess wrote:
| I noticed this recently too when using Firefox.
| inetknght wrote:
| > _there 's products that have feature creep but I wouldn't
| say GitHub does that._
|
| I remember GitHub from years ago. I still find myself looking
| for things that were there years ago but have since moved.
|
| Also, GitHub search is (still) comically useless. I just
| clone and use grep instead.
| dunham wrote:
| I've also loaded repositories into a web instance of vscode
| (with the '.' shortcut) and done Cmd-Sh-F, which also works
| better than their search.
| keb_ wrote:
| > GitHub in essence is still pretty much the same, there's
| products that have feature creep but I wouldn't say GitHub
| does that.
|
| I think we're using two different products. Off the top of my
| head, I can think of Github Projects (the Trello-like
| feature), Github Marketplace, Github Discussions, the
| complete revamp of the file-viewer/editor, and all the new
| AI/LLM-based stuff baked into yet another feature known as
| Codespaces.
|
| > I can't say that I'm having issues with the performance
| either. I work with large PRs too
|
| Good for you. I suffered for maybe 4 years from this, and so
| have many others:
| https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/39341
| o_m wrote:
| GitHub isn't focusing on creating a good Git platform anymore,
| they are an AI company now
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| Still doesn't read email, but it's close to that.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20165602
| azangru wrote:
| > I've got this feeling that the endless feature creep of
| Github has begun to cause rot of core essential features.
|
| Tangential, but... I was so excited by their frontend, which
| was slowly adopting web components, until after Microsoft's
| acquisition they started rewriting it in React.
|
| (Design is still very solid though!)
| ath3nd wrote:
| Wait, wasn't GitHub a company ran by the guy who just two days
| said that devs should either embrace AI or leave the field?
|
| https://www.developer-tech.com/news/embrace-ai-or-leave-care...
|
| Maybe his developers embraced AI a bit too much? Or maybe they
| left the field?
| lrvick wrote:
| Does not impact me, because my team and I self-host Forgejo for
| all our work.
|
| People seem to forget Git was meant to be decentralized.
| redrove wrote:
| Yes, but you may work with other people, other organizations,
| or at least depend on open source code that's hosted on GitHub.
|
| I agree with the sentiment though.
| lrvick wrote:
| Do work in and rely on self hosted forks so you are not
| blocked, and upstream when upstream code submissions become
| possible again.
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| It used to take a whole team of developers to take down
| production, now, one programmer with a fleet of agents can do it
| in 1/10th the time!
| alberth wrote:
| Email-based workflow, does have a few benefits like mitigation
| from this issue.
| drumdance wrote:
| At first I thought this mean that the absolute count of pull
| requests was trending down and this could be a new BLS data
| point.
| sitzkrieg wrote:
| how many more years of this before people realize its actually
| not good at all?
| udev4096 wrote:
| https://radicle.xyz is the future!
| dang wrote:
| (Presumably?) related ongoing thread:
|
| _Why is GitHub UI getting slower?_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44799861 - Aug 2025 (76
| comments)
| hnthrow90348765 wrote:
| I miss the days where downtime would be like half a day or more
| and you could use it as an excuse to go home or do something
| else.
|
| Weirdly people were less angry about it back then than we seem to
| be today.
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| That's because people can't handle speed. With a natural delay,
| they could cool down or at least become more detached. Society
| needs natural points where people are forced to detach from
| what they do. That's one reason why AI and high-speed
| communications are so dangerous: they accelerate what we do too
| quickly to remain balanced. (And I am speaking in general here,
| of course there will be a minority who can handle it.)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-08-05 23:01 UTC)