[HN Gopher] GitHub was having issues
___________________________________________________________________
GitHub was having issues
Author : rock_artist
Score : 332 points
Date : 2025-08-12 14:37 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.githubstatus.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.githubstatus.com)
| meepmorp wrote:
| Actually, the big problem for me is that github doesn't have
| issues at the moment.
| TonyTrapp wrote:
| Yep, issues are having issues, resulting in user not seeing
| issues
| boesboes wrote:
| Yeah, i was pretty glad to see i have zero open issue remaining
| today!
| jsk2600 wrote:
| At least I can enjoy seeing zero issues on my projects, once in
| a lifetime...
| legobmw99 wrote:
| Day one of the new management structure off to a rocky start
| xyst wrote:
| always been "rocky" since the acquisition.
|
| This is just perfect comedic timing
| acedTrex wrote:
| Day ends in Y
| Thev00d00 wrote:
| Vibe coded a bit too hard.
| belter wrote:
| Did they upgrade to GitHub 11 ?
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| Thanks to internal politics, that only possible if they have a
| Technical Product Manager II (TPM).
| yabones wrote:
| The only thing worse than "it's down" is hearing "it's down
| _again_ "
|
| Godspeed, IR workers...
| jeltz wrote:
| Last time it was down was Friday last week when they broke some
| of the raw content URLs.
| rs_rs_rs_rs_rs wrote:
| Just Github? I'm having problems logging in into Dropbox as their
| captcha setup fails.
| halfmatthalfcat wrote:
| Github reliability has been abysmal the past couple of weeks.
| thrdbndndn wrote:
| Coincidentally reddit is also down.
| mock-possum wrote:
| Well at least there's a silver lining then
| amelius wrote:
| When a cool job becomes boring IT work.
| zanfr wrote:
| well I wish nothing but the best for the great people at
| Microsoft, this small family business.
| bootsmann wrote:
| I am surprised at how much github is willing to let themselves go
| for being a product that can nowadays be replaced by someone over
| the weekend. This is the second major outage within like 2 weeks.
| taude wrote:
| Depends how much customization you've done to your cicd and how
| heavily you use custom GHA, and other plugins. No way my org
| could move off in a weekend.
| tracker1 wrote:
| Agreed... you could probably move a single project over
| pretty easily on a weekend, or several depending on how
| integrated you are.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _for being a product that can nowadays be replaced by someone
| over the weekend._
|
| If one person can move a company move off of GitHub in a
| weekend, you're too small a company for Microsoft to care
| about.
| bootsmann wrote:
| It was less about moving your company away and more about the
| core functionality being extremely simple to reproduce.
| nimbius wrote:
| recent developments in the C levels not withstanding, github has
| been a dumpster fire for quite some time now with no sign of
| improvement.
|
| https://www.githubstatus.com/history
| jeltz wrote:
| Those are not even all. They had an incident with raw content
| on the 8th which is not listed.
| metalliqaz wrote:
| Dear sages of HN, what is the scrappy new upstart project that
| will rise up to take Github's place? Because this is becoming
| intolerable.
| meepmorp wrote:
| It's kind of weird that we've collectively decided on a
| distributed version control system, while centralizing where we
| keep the repositories and metadata.
| ryandv wrote:
| This is because the dream of true P2P decentralization died
| with NAT and IPv4 exhaustion.
| metalliqaz wrote:
| I think it's just a simple reality that most projects don't
| actually need or want a decentralized development process. In
| my experience, most projects are looking for a single, high-
| reliability canonical source that is in control of project
| leadership. Most projects are only developed by a small
| group, maybe even only one person.
| meepmorp wrote:
| Yeah, I think what people really liked about git (vs many
| other VCSs at the time) was cheap and easy local branching,
| not the distributed nature.
| tracker1 wrote:
| I think the distributed support is pretty nice for easy-
| ish mirroring. Even to a relatively bare git+ssh target
| on a self-hosted server. No specialized services
| required. I mean, just for VCS.
| keybored wrote:
| Local and distributed is the same difference to me
| compared to subversion.
| keybored wrote:
| ^ Comment on the Nth 100+ GitHub Down thread (every thread
| is like that).
|
| Maybe everyone here is just using it as an excuse to
| chatter about forges or GitHub being down too much etc. and
| it has no impact. But if it does and people are honestly
| fretting they can mirror their repos. Then no one needs to
| worry _that_ much (except for their cursed CI setups) the
| next time it happens.
|
| And that's a benefit of peer-to-peer repos right there.
| john01dav wrote:
| I think that the answer here is eventual widespread use of many
| smaller options, from FSF's Savannah to self-hosted
| gitea/forejo/gitlab.
|
| Git is in a good position to support this.
| cAtte_ wrote:
| not gonna happen. society loves monopolies because they're
| convenient
| john01dav wrote:
| We're starting to see the pain of such monopolies. Note
| that I included a hosted option (Savannah) in my list. It
| doesn't take everyone leaving github to break the monopoly,
| just enough to make it not a monopoly.
| evilmonkey19 wrote:
| I'm a fan of github but lately i'm seeing a lot of issues like
| these... Also they don't have yet support for IPv6 (surprising).
| awestroke wrote:
| The refusal to support IPv6 is embarrassing at this point
| geoffeg wrote:
| I thought a recent downtime was contributed to rolling out
| the initial prep for IPv6 support.
| kevingadd wrote:
| Had to buy an IPv4 address for a VPS the other day in order
| to clone some git repositories. Couldn't believe it. Costing
| their customers money when they should be able to support v6
| by now.
| hk1337 wrote:
| What VPS are you using that doesn't come with both IPv4 and
| IPv6?
| jraph wrote:
| There are options where you pay 1EUR/IPv4/month and IPv6s
| are free.
| miyuru wrote:
| There are plenty of low end providers that support IPv6
| only.
|
| At that scale price of IPv4 is the highest cost of the
| VPS.
|
| Here is a list of providers I created back in 2022.
|
| https://blog.miyuru.lk/ipv6-hosting-2022/
| e3bc54b2 wrote:
| Hetzner charges extra for IPv4 address, as I believe most
| of them do. I know because I went through the same crap.
| dehrmann wrote:
| It seems more like a weird Hetzner thing that they won't
| give you a IPv4 NAT gateway.
| drozycki wrote:
| How would a server-side NAT know which Hetzner customer
| it should route a request to? It has an encrypted packet
| arriving at this shared address on port 443. You can
| route a shared address to the proper service based on the
| HTTP Host header but that can only be done by the
| customer using their encryption key, so no sharing an
| address between customers. Home LAN NAT only works
| because the router can change the source port used by the
| request so that responses are unambiguously routed to the
| right client.
| lelandbatey wrote:
| I don't think they're saying they should support incoming
| connections on such a NAT, I think they're saying that
| servers behind the NAT would be able to make outgoing
| connections (e.g. to access shared resources).
| kingstnap wrote:
| Well, the answer is easy. It doesn't do any forwarding,
| so a random 443 packet gets dropped.
|
| It would be the same as with home NAT. Your device can
| create TCP connections outbound but can't listen/accept.
|
| It would solve the problem of not being able to
| communicate to another IPv4 server but it prevents you
| from hosting your own.
| jorams wrote:
| They charge EUR0.50 per month to add an IPv4 address. A
| shared IPv4 NAT gateway introduces a whole lot of
| problems for them just to support customers who need IPv4
| but don't want to pay a tiny amount for it.
| ta1243 wrote:
| AWS charges for ipv4 doesn't it?
| hk1337 wrote:
| In regards to an EC2, AFAIK, not necessarily. You pay
| extra for an elastic IP (IPv4) which is the equivalent to
| a static IP but the EC2 is assigned an IPv4 address and
| an IPv6 when IPv6 is enabled.
| oasisbob wrote:
| Beginning in early 2024, AWS began charging for every
| IPv4 address in-use on your resources.
|
| https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-aws-public-
| ipv4-address...
| jiggawatts wrote:
| Azure has "support" for IPv6 that just "works", so... they
| could just turn it on.
|
| Oh, you're wondering about the air quotes?
|
| Don't worry about it! Sales told my boss that that feature
| checkbox has a "tick".
| depr wrote:
| Given that they are probably at least partly on Azure, this
| makes it less surprising because Azure has the worst IPv6
| implementation of the 3 large cloud providers.
| 77pt77 wrote:
| Possibly stupid question but, how can someone mess that up?
|
| What is wrong/missing?
| jiggawatts wrote:
| I've gone on long rants about it before right here on HN
| but I can't be bothered digging up the old post...
|
| ... the quick and dirty bullet points are:
|
| - Enabling IPv6 in one virtual network could _break_
| managed PaaS services in _other_ peered networks.
|
| - Up until very recently none of the PaaS services could be
| configured with IPv6 firewall rules.
|
| - Most core managed network components were IPv4 only.
| Firewalls, gateways, VPNs, etc... support is still spotty.
|
| - They NAT IPv6 which is just gibbering eldrich madness.
|
| - IPv6 addresses are handed out in tiny pools of 16
| addresses at a time. No, not a /16 or anything like that.
|
| Etc...
|
| The IPv6 networking in Azure feels like it was implemented
| by offshore contractors that did as they were told and
| never stopped to think if any of it made sense.
|
| References:
|
| - Inbound IPv6 support for App Service was added _this
| week_. https://azure.microsoft.com/en-au/updates/?id=499998
|
| - Outbound IPv6 support is "Preview":
| https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/app-
| service/overview...
|
| - Public IP Prefixes support a maximum of 16 consecutive
| addresses even for IPv6: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-
| us/azure/virtual-network/ip-s...
|
| - There's an entire page of IPv6 limitations. To understand
| how nuts this is, just swap IPv6<->IPv4 and see if it still
| reads like a professional service you'd pay money for!
| https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-
| network/ip-s...
|
| - You STILL can't use PostgreSQL with IPv6: _" Even if the
| subnet for the Postgres Flexible Server doesn't have any
| IPv6 addresses assigned, it cannot be deployed if there are
| IPv6 addresses in the VNet."_ -- that's just bonkers.
|
| - Just... oh my god:
|
| _" Azure Virtual WAN currently supports IPv4 traffic
| only."
|
| "Azure Route Server currently supports IPv4 traffic only."
|
| "Azure Firewall doesn't currently support IPv6"
|
| "You can't add IPv6 ranges to a virtual network that has
| existing resource in use."_
| 77pt77 wrote:
| > They NAT IPv6 which is just gibbering eldrich madness.
|
| Yeah! I'm out.
|
| What a complete lack of competence!
| rvz wrote:
| No CEO of GitHub to contact about this outage this time.
| numbsafari wrote:
| Contact Satya Nadella.
| siva7 wrote:
| The guy who framed Github as a stellar example of how
| Microsoft will let operate its aquisitions independently?
| numbsafari wrote:
| He is (and was) literally the CEO.
|
| Yeah, he can give whatever title he wants to his
| subordinates, but the "CEO" of GitHub has been a mid-level
| VP for quite some time.
| dustypotato wrote:
| Why does it show me a cookie banner from Atlassian?
| alexjplant wrote:
| ...because they use Statuspage, an Atlassian product?
| j45 wrote:
| The cloud is someone else's computer.
|
| I wonder if self hosting is more reliable. How much does a
| private and firewalled git* instance need updates?
| taude wrote:
| Before gitlabs, github, etc. it was common to host your own
| code repos on-prem. The thing now, though, is that there's a
| lot of add-on functionality for how teams flow from using
| github over just hosting a git server.... so it's not really
| apples v oranges, anymore.
| john01dav wrote:
| You can use a self hosted forge, like gitea, forejo, or
| gitlab.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| > The thing now, though, is that there's a lot of add-on
| functionality
|
| I don't get why people use those.
|
| I understand free software projects that don't want to run
| any infrastructure, but why companies push their building and
| deployment out of premises when all you need is one trusted
| computer somewhere. Why do people insist on trusting cloud
| computers more than the ones they can kick?
| j45 wrote:
| Gitlab can handle a lot of CI/CD hosted locally for free that
| github actually charges for.
|
| Git was originally local only too. People would run their own
| source code repos, it was trivial to run and maintain for the
| most part for most basic to intermediate use cases.
|
| I had clients who insisted source code (mine or theirs)
| couldn't be on a public cloud provider. It's not that
| unreasonable or uncommon.
| john01dav wrote:
| I have gitea running in my basement. You can see how often it
| updates on the gitea github (since they don't self host since
| they haven't written an importer yet). You could automate this,
| but I haven't spent enough time updating to make that make
| sense.
| numbsafari wrote:
| If you just need a hosted git server, maintenance is mostly
| just making sure you have a proper storage/backup strategy in
| place.
|
| If you want to self-host a code forge... start here:
| https://forgejo.org/docs/latest/admin/upgrade
| homebrewer wrote:
| Our gitea uptimes are measured in months. The only downtime is
| during non-working hours for upgrading gitea & the underlying
| OS, which take about 5 seconds of work and another 15 seconds
| of waiting for it to upgrade the database and restart.
| j45 wrote:
| That's great to hear, taking this downtime to install them
| all and try them out.
|
| At the very least a few backups and mirrors running once I
| get them syncing.
| tracker1 wrote:
| If you don't need any features beyond a backup location for
| git, all you need is an SSH server with FS support. All you
| need is git on the remote server to initialize a server
| directory, and you can target that with git+ssh directly. Works
| well enough as a backup/mirror repository.
|
| If you want to self-host for more features (CI/CD, PRs, etc.)
| there's GitLab, Gitea, and forgejo that I'm aware of. I think
| GitLab is a bit heavy duty for most self-hosting usage myself
| though. I actually appreciate the online/cloud and commercial
| options.
|
| When you self-host, it becomes your job to fix it when it
| breaks.
| j45 wrote:
| Yup, as you mentioned, there's other alternatives to Gitlab
| lcaolly that are decent.
|
| I'm finding myself liking and using gitlab more and more when
| I come back to it every 6-8 months.
|
| I don't know how I'd be able to trust only a cloud for my
| source code and devops/CI/CD. At least a mirrored setup in a
| private or hybrid cloud on another provider as a failover
| that isn't with the same cloud provider.
| ryandv wrote:
| Funny, because just yesterday I was downvoted for pointing out
| (among other things) GitHub's less than stellar reliability these
| past few years.
|
| When are the AI vibe coders going to create a GitHub replacement?
| With 1000x AI productivity a lean startup should easily
| outcompete the incumbents, no?
| numbsafari wrote:
| Yeah, especially if you deploy it on Azure...
| gmerc wrote:
| Is this a good time to mention forgejo as a self hosted
| alternative?
| numbsafari wrote:
| It's a great time.
| phkahler wrote:
| You got my attention, so why didn't you provide a link?
| sigio wrote:
| https://forgejo.org/ or https://codeberg.org/
| jeltz wrote:
| How does it compare to Gitlab?
| dzogchen wrote:
| Much simpler. Much less features. Completely open source and
| not only the core.
| jeltz wrote:
| Any important feature from Gitlab you feel is missing? I
| personally think Gitlab has way more features than I need
| but maybe there are some important ones I would miss.
| makkesk8 wrote:
| Running Gitlab in any kind of scale beyond a single
| server is a major PITA. And it's very poorly optimized.
| jeltz wrote:
| That I am well aware of. I hate running Gitlab. I jsut
| wonder what different features different people are
| missing.
| appease7727 wrote:
| Gods, for some reason GitLab consumes 5-10% of a CPU _at
| all times_. I spent weeks trying to get it to calm down
| to reduce our AWS spend. Absolutely no changes no matter
| what I tried. On my 2013 Xeon server at home it 's even
| worse.
|
| GitLab is great, I really do enjoy working with it. I
| _hate_ running it.
| 12_throw_away wrote:
| Yeah, I love gitlab as a user - but as an admin, the
| performance feels like something out the 90s. I had to
| use the gitlab-rails REPL console for something a couple
| of weeks ago. Even on a server with tons of headroom, it
| took *10 minutes* to start up?
| styanax wrote:
| A tough question as everyone's needs are different; I
| might recommend you create an account on
| https://codeberg.org as it's the largest, most popular
| instance of Forgejo running with many FOSS projects
| hosted there.
|
| Codeberg devs have to disable some features (pull mirrors
| e.g., only push is allowed to prevent abuse) and they use
| some custom code (abuse mitigation - spam, etc.) but in
| general you're getting the latest Foregjo experience
| "test drive" which only gets better when self hosting
| when you can use all the features.
| lucb1e wrote:
| I use git pretty basically, just as a revision system
| where the hosted version has some nice-to-haves on top
| like rendering markdown, permalinking bits of code to
| people, and being able to open tickets and contribute
| code. Gitea/Forgejo/Codeberg does all of that and I
| haven't run into any missing features. It's also a _lot_
| easier to navigate than GitLab, but I 'll admit that's
| probably just a matter of me not being used to it
|
| Having self-hosted Gitea after considering GitLab, I can
| also say that the resource consumption of Gitea is a tiny
| fraction of that of GitLab's. I don't get the impression
| that their employees care about self hosters beyond as a
| gateway for enterprise sysadmins to get it running
| quickly before doing some big installation
| WhyNotHugo wrote:
| I deal with GitLab a lot. Both the official instance and
| third party instances.
|
| It drives me crazy how slow it is. A lot of operations
| take minutes. Eg: I push commits to a branch and open an
| MR. During 2-3 minutes, the MR will indicate that no
| changes were found. When I push new changes, it can also
| take minutes or update, so I can't quickly check that it
| all looks correct.
|
| The latest release changed their issues UI, so when you
| try to open an issue, it's opened on a floating panel on
| the right 30% of the screen. I've no idea what exotic use
| case this addresses, but when I click a link, just open
| it. The browser does it find. No need to reinvent
| navigation like this. Now to open an issue, I need to
| wait for this slow floating UI to load before I can
| _actually_ navigate to the page. Which will also be
| extremely slow.
|
| Don't even get me started on the UI. Buttons are hidden
| all over the place. Obvious links are behind obscure
| abstract menus. At this point, I remember where all the
| basic stuff is, but I can understand why newcomers
| struggle so much.
|
| Hosting GitLab is also really resource intensive. For a
| small team of 2-3 people, I don't think you can get away
| with "just" 8GB of ram.
|
| ---
|
| I do have to admit, GitLab CI is pretty good, assuming
| that you're fine with just Docker support and don't need
| to support BSD or some exotic platforms.
| homebrewer wrote:
| Depends on your needs. Last time I checked, Gitlab wanted
| money for e.g. assigning multiple PR reviewers, which is
| available in gitea/forgejo.
|
| The real issue with gitea/forgejo compared to Gitlab is
| their terrible CI, which is (to some approximation) a clone
| of GitHub Actions, also a dumpster fire for those of us
| proficient with/preferring the UNIX command line. You'll
| probably need a separate CI runner, like Woodpecker or
| Drone.
| jeltz wrote:
| Gitlab CI is so much better than Github Actions. With
| some additional improvements Gitlab CI could become
| amazing.
| zamalek wrote:
| CI is one area that it's "lacking." I quote that because,
| honestly, all the bells and whistles in these CI yamls
| are starting to hurt. Woodpecker[1] (what forgejo uses)
| is strikingly simple.
|
| [1]: https://woodpecker-ci.org/
| yogsototh wrote:
| I host a forgejo instance and I feel it is great to embrace the
| distributed nature of git.
|
| But be aware if you intend to host it you will need to protect
| it from recent AI web scrapers. I use anubis but there are
| other alternatives.
| everfrustrated wrote:
| Enterprise customers, remember to email your sales rep and ask
| for them to report on their contracted uptime with you that you
| are allowed to do as per contract. They wont do this unless you
| ask hoping you don't notice the outages. It creates lots of
| internal pain - they have no automation internally for reporting
| on this.
|
| This is the only way anything will ever change. GitHub is
| _easily_ the most unreliable SaaS product. There's not a week
| whereby we aren't affected by an outage. Their reputation is mud.
| petcat wrote:
| > GitHub is _easily_ the most unreliable SaaS product.
|
| Some of us are stuck using Atlassian and BitBucket and it is by
| far worse in every way.
| __natty__ wrote:
| Agree, atlassian products are much worse in terms of
| reliability.
| enraged_camel wrote:
| We use Jira. It's a horrendous product, but I cannot
| remember the last time it was down, unlike Github.
| ta1243 wrote:
| I use self-hosted jira, it's a great product, but I have
| full control over my teams tasks and workflows and as a
| tiny team we make them work for us (subject, description,
| comments, occasional linking to other tickets, assigned
| to, and status of "open", "blocked" or "done")
|
| Most of the problems I hear about are micromanaging
| product managers. That's not the fault of the tool itself
| per-se.
| hkt wrote:
| Amen, BitBucket outages are regular and showstopping. Self
| hosting is genuinely more reliable.
| ta1243 wrote:
| Noooo!! It's impossible to get three nines uptime when you
| self host something on a single raspberry pi, I read it on
| the internet so it must be true.
| bargainbin wrote:
| Ah, you clearly haven't worked with the self hosting teams
| that I have.
|
| I hope I never again have to explain to someone that you
| can't just "restore the code from the weekly database
| backup" because the code is in the file system they just
| osmosed.
| sigio wrote:
| It's also _by_far_ the cheapest, and most git-work can be
| done offline, so while it's inconvenient, it's not stopping
| all operations here.
| ta1243 wrote:
| Depends how intergrated you are. If you're using it as a
| code repository fine, if you're tying your workflows into
| it with pull requests, actions, maybe a third party CI
| which ties to it, and use it as part of operations then
| it's a major problem
|
| I just approved a PR which added a user to one of our AWS
| accounts for example, if github is down then that PR can't
| be approved, the update can't work and the user can't
| access that account
| Nicook wrote:
| I mean you can always work around it with the correct
| permissions right.
| weberer wrote:
| I've only had good experiences with Gitlab.
| guywithahat wrote:
| Funny, I've had the worst experience with gitlab. Bitbucket
| is the best experience I've had so far
| zemo wrote:
| I used GitHub for years in the tech industry, then went into
| the games industry and used BitBucket and hated it, thought
| it was such a downgrade. Now I'm back in the tech industry
| and using GitHub, and I miss BitBucket.
| nickitolas wrote:
| Is games not a part of tech?
| krs_ wrote:
| Of course, but there are some oddities in tool use
| compared to other industries. At my job we use Perforce
| for version control for example, which I think is more
| common in the game industry than other solutions for
| whatever reason. Naturally everyone here hates it.
| phlakaton wrote:
| But not everybody here has to try and manage many GB or
| even TB of assets in their VCS. I wager game company
| build/dev engineers know what they are doing in picking
| Perforce.
| __float wrote:
| It is a _decision_ to put those assets in the same VCS as
| your source code. It's not one you are required to make.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| ...maybe, but there a good reason not to make that
| decision, assuming you have a VCS that can manage large
| files?
|
| I am very much not in this industry, but it seems to me
| that if the assets and code depend on one another, you'd
| want to keep them together.
| psygn89 wrote:
| I liked the UI of BitBucket more. Stuff I accessed
| frequently like commits and branches were tabs across the
| top, easy to reach from any page. Branch dropdown sort
| order was by most recently updated unlike GitHub where I
| have to search for it. Easy to diff files. This was like 4
| or 5 years ago though, maybe it has gone through
| modernization/enshittification. GitHub feels a bit
| fragmented and it tries to be more performant by
| virtualizing some things but while BitBucket in some sense
| was more rudimentary and showed it all (bogging my machine
| down some), it allowed me to CTRL + F easily with more
| confidence whereas with virtualization I've had issues with
| it finding things and I couldn't 100% trust it.
| bpye wrote:
| > then went into the games industry and used BitBucket and
| hated it
|
| At least it wasn't Perforce?
| dosethree wrote:
| Bitbucket is butt
| lesuorac wrote:
| Starting to pretty much desire tools that can do nothing
| but are just fast at their core competency.
|
| Looking at PRs in github and then when toggling to the
| "files" tab it chocking up or being like "I don't want to
| display this file because its more than 100 lines" is like
| wtf you're whole point is to show me modified files.
| FredPret wrote:
| Like the Unix philosophy, but for businesses.
|
| Come to think of it, this might be great advice for life
| in general: do one thing very well, and be modular (aka
| play well with others)
| Analemma_ wrote:
| I wish the world worked this way, but I don't think it
| does, especially in tech. If you "do one thing well", the
| cloud hyperscalers will use their billions to copy
| whatever that is, and add your "one good thing" into
| their bundled subscriptions or cloud plans. At which
| point, any rational CTO will go "why should we pay for
| this, when we're already getting it via
| AWS/O365/whatever, and with better integration with our
| existing tooling to boot?"
|
| I don't think "do one thing well" can succeed in this
| world, which is why Atlassian, Dropbox, etc. keep on
| launching things like office suites even though that
| makes no sense considering their core competencies. It's
| the only way not be streamrolled by FAANG.
| MoreQARespect wrote:
| It works with Keiretsu. Ive long thought that this is how
| Europe should play catch up and build its own
| equivalent(s) of AWS, GCP and Azure.
| agloe_dreams wrote:
| I'm about to sound crazy.
|
| Github's problem is that it isn't a SPA. It is a massive
| Ruby on rails project that is all server-rendered.
| Everything you do needs to be synchronous and almost
| everything requires a reload. A react or angular app with
| great restraint would be dramatically faster at all of
| this as viewing a file is just an API call - not a page
| reload. They are stuck with their hands tied as loading
| large data would cause the whole page load to be delayed
| - thus silly limits.
|
| Many things should not be webapps... but an app on the
| web like this...probably should.
| lpapez wrote:
| You can have parts of the web app rendered on the client,
| and still keep the rest of the app the same. Rewrite the
| diffs and previews, keep the rest as-is.
|
| There is no excuse for possibly the most used feature of
| Github to suck so badly.
| cyrilou242 wrote:
| > Everything you do needs to be synchronous and almost
| everything requires a reload.
|
| this is pretty incorrect, you may want to look into the
| concept of "partials" in SSR. maybe you meant everything
| requires a roundtrip ? but SPA would not solve most of
| the roundtrips necessary in github given many
| interactions in the github app require authn/authz
| checks.
|
| would you care getting into more details ?
|
| Also, 'old' github was known to be very fast an reliable
| and was indeed a ruby on rails SSR app. Since a few years
| ago github started to introduce react and more client
| side logic and it _correlates_ with more issues and more
| slowness in the frontend. It only _correlates_ , but
| still.
| kirici wrote:
| I am increasingly in favor of inspecting/diffing branches
| from MRs locally.
| at-fates-hands wrote:
| Isn't Sourcetree an Atlassian product? I used that for a
| while when my company outlawed Github and it seemed to do a
| good job.
| throwzasdf wrote:
| Atlassian Jira and Confluence rock. Can't recall ever using
| BitBucket but Atlassians's products are top notch.
| JanMa wrote:
| I used to maintain a self hosted instance of BitBucket and
| the user experience of it was actually very nice. We shut it
| down when Atlassian deprecated the self-hosted licenses.
| Moving to GitHub and GitHub Actions felt like a downgrade in
| more than a few ways
| pmontra wrote:
| Two customers of mine have been using Bitbucket and other
| Atlassian products. I remember a problem a few months ago,
| nothing else. Maybe I've been lucky, no accesses during the
| outages.
| mmcnl wrote:
| Bitbucket is quite nice actually. It's got very little bloat
| and just... works?
| cddotdotslash wrote:
| Companies should automate this. Write their own outage
| monitoring, feed the results, plus the cumbersome format you
| have to send to the provider, into an LLM, have it spit out an
| email requesting SLA credits or whatever the contract
| specifies.
|
| Probably not worth it for low cost services, but if you're
| paying GitHub $x millions per year, maybe it is.
| colechristensen wrote:
| They intentionally underreport outages. Everybody does. When
| your performance metrics for your customers, managers, and
| individual contributors all include uptime, what you get
| isn't better uptime but lies about uptime.
| colinbartlett wrote:
| Some customers of my product, StatusGator, do this with our
| API. They can extract the outage data -- including the time
| when we detect the outage before its acknowledged. And then
| use that to get SLA credits.
| ta1243 wrote:
| Why would I trust you to report
|
| Its great that your specific product does this, but as a
| whole I have to monitor the service separately to keep you
| honest (well not you specifically, I'm sure you are honest
| and do as much as you can to be honest, but not every
| company is), and of course to monitor the problems I have
| which you don't detect.
| edoceo wrote:
| Gotta get a monitor for the monitor, then a manger for
| the monitors, and a manager to manage the managers of
| monitors.
| WD-42 wrote:
| I think that was sarcasm
| dehrmann wrote:
| Obviously you should use a SaaS for SaaS uptime monitoring.
| No need to build this yourself.
| FinnKuhn wrote:
| You can also self-host something like Prometheus or Uptime-
| Kuma.
| RandallBrown wrote:
| I've had much better luck with GitHub than GitLab and whatever
| Atlassian is calling their source control these days.
|
| Still sounds like good advice though.
| sneak wrote:
| The way you change this is not by pressuring Microsoft to be
| better or less of a shitty company.
|
| The way that you change this is by switching to a different
| forge host, or by self-hosting Gitea.
|
| I do so, and it's simple and painless and cheap, and this
| quarter my uptime is better than this multinational's.
| xyst wrote:
| this, but unfortunately many Fortune 500 are so deep in the
| MSFT stack. It would take many years to migrate off.
| frmrghr wrote:
| Former githubber anon posting a non main acct
|
| You all should be running a small private git
|
| Most teams could get buy with something like a tiny instance
| with snapshots every commit
|
| AWS has too much skin in the game to be as unreliable as they
| used to be.
|
| There's zero reason for a startup to use all these services
| anymore. The only reason they ever existed was big government
| manipulation of the labor market through ZIRP
|
| It's far more set n forget to self host git than github will be
| xyst wrote:
| All this does is make some poor offshore schmuck toil away for
| hours trying to get this data.
|
| If companies begin to _cancel_ their contracts with MSFT/GH
| because of a breach of SLAs, then maybe conditions will
| improve.
|
| Reality: companies locked into multi year deals with MSFT
| including a MSFT-shit suite and windows licenses.
|
| Migrating away from it will be expensive. MS knows this. Thus
| the reason why nothing will change.
| zulban wrote:
| > GitHub is _easily_ the most unreliable SaaS product.
|
| I'm no fan of Microsoft either but when you say ridiculous
| things it's hard to take you seriously.
| foobarchu wrote:
| Is it that much hyperbole, assuming we ignore small fry SaaS?
| I've personally noticed at least three outages in the last
| few weeks alone.
|
| Sure it's less impactful than some services since you don't
| need access to the website at all times, but the reliability
| is still really bad.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > Is it that much hyperbole, assuming we ignore small fry
| SaaS?
|
| Well there's Claude for starters.
| ugh123 wrote:
| Customers should also then compare what the sales guy is
| telling you to your own metrics, and see how far off they are.
| ab71e5 wrote:
| Ah was wondering why pull requests did not show up
| gethly wrote:
| I've always used Bitbucket as it allows private repositories, so
| Github was never something I wanted to use. But it is one of the
| most important websites in the world for tech people and should
| be run better than this, especially being now owned by the
| largest tech company in the world. On the other hand, it just
| shows that centralisation, or over-reliance on one thing or
| service, is always the worst idea. But people are very lazy and
| so we keep running in these circles ad infinitum.
| clintonb wrote:
| Do you mean _free_ private repos? GitHub has allowed free
| private repos for a few years now.
| gethly wrote:
| I have been using bitbucket before it got acquired by
| atlassian, which was in 2010, so i am sure github changed
| quite a bit since then. Even though i do have a github
| account, i don't use it for anything else other than creating
| or commenting on issues for other repos. So i have no clue
| about present day github capabilities as i am satisfied with
| bitbucket and had no need to explore github in depth.
| masklinn wrote:
| Github switched from unlimited users and per-repo fees to
| unlimited private repositories and paying per-seat 10 years ago
| or so: https://github.blog/news-insights/product-
| news/introducing-u...
| mattbruv wrote:
| Man, I remember feeling like that change was somewhat recent.
| 10 years ago was about 2016. I'm not ready to accept this.
| notnmeyer wrote:
| anybody have a GH alternative they like? bonus points awarded for
| not being a straight clone of GH.
| astrolx wrote:
| forgejo [1] works well for me. It can be self-hosted, otherwise
| e.g Codeberg [2] runs a good instance [2]
|
| [1] https://forgejo.org/ [2] https://codeberg.org/
| nerdypepper wrote:
| https://tangled.sh?
|
| social features via atprotocol, native jujutsu support, stacked
| PRs, interdiffs, light weight to selfhost, nix-based CI.
| Aldipower wrote:
| Gitlab of course. It's mature.
| havkom wrote:
| Does this matter much? Git is a "distributed source control
| system". Are you using git in the wrong way? :)
| tracker1 wrote:
| Well, considering git is only version control, and github does
| much more... pull requests, social interaction,
| workers/workflows, ci/cd etc. It's kind of a big deal.
|
| Unless you have some sort of decentralized method of doing
| CI/CD and pull requests I'm unaware of?
| ngoldbaum wrote:
| I wonder why the github status page has an atlassian cookie
| request pop-up.
| mbb70 wrote:
| The status page is a SaaS product called StatusPage, acquired
| by Atlassian in 2016.
| taude wrote:
| git was designed as a distributed vcs for high-latency connected
| developers with plenty of ability to work offline.
|
| I don't think I've really been impacted by any of the outages.
| Maybe I wait an extra hour to merge a feature or something, in
| which case I actually get to eat lunch and browse HN, doesn't
| feel quite as catastrophic for me, as some of you.
| petcat wrote:
| The problem is that people design their entire development and
| release lifecyle to be dependent on Github. A lot of times they
| can't even push code hotfixes to production without it. It's a
| terrible SPOF for a lot of engineering orgs.
| taude wrote:
| The hotfixes makes sense.
| lucb1e wrote:
| We also started having customers since a few years that
| declare GitHub fully trusted, as in, it is simply not worth
| considering what the impact would be if that vendor gets
| compromised. I can't name names, but this includes a vendor
| that aims to prevent supply chain attacks (technically
| language-agnostic; in practice aiming to be the solution
| chosen by one of the biggest programming language's package
| manager)
|
| > can't even push code hotfixes to production without it.
| It's a terrible SPOF
|
| GitHub's _availability_ impact is the least of my concerns
| these days. It 'll be a really tough year for society
| worldwide if we need to rebuild loads of infrastructure after
| some threat actor got into github and managed to change key
| pieces of code without being detected a couple of years.
| Having seen how hospitals handle updates, they might get
| lucky and be old enough to not be affected yet, or have a
| really tough time recovering due to understaffed IT
|
| No clue how to even begin solving this since our OSes are
| likely all pulling dependencies from GitHub without
| verification of the developer's PGP key, if the project even
| has that and applies it correctly. I guess I can only
| recommend being aware of the problem and doing what you can
| in your own organization to reduce the impact
| dymk wrote:
| GitHub is everything in addition to the git hosting. Issue
| tracking, code review, CI, artifact hosting, wiki+docs, kanban
| board.
| taude wrote:
| That makes sense, I wasn't sure how "all in" everyone is on
| these other features that are only github centric.
| koiueo wrote:
| GitHub isn't just git, it's also a CI, a project management
| tool/issues tracker...
| Joe_Cool wrote:
| It also has pretty neat support for emailing patches. And it's
| practically impossible to lose data as long as any single dev
| still has an intact .git directory.
|
| Nobody is preventing the devs from just setting up a second
| "upstream" and pushing to both github and gitlab (for example)
| or any other service at the same time.
| adobrawy wrote:
| In meantime, I recommend to read their availability reports on
| their blog, published monthly: https://github.blog/news-
| insights/company-news/
| bob1029 wrote:
| I've been working on a self-hosted alternative to GitHub and I am
| curious what HN finds to be the most important features. I think
| Code, Issues and PRs are the critical aspects, but I don't know
| what typical workflows look like for others these days.
|
| It seems like there are some teams that have figured out a way to
| turn GH into a labyrinth of CI/CD actions that allegedly produces
| a ton of business value, but I don't know how typical this kind
| of use case is. If the average GH user just needs the essentials,
| I could easily focus those verticals down and spend more time on
| things like SAML/OIDC, reporting APIs, _performance_ , etc. I
| suspect there aren't a whole lot of developers who are finding
| things like first party AI integration to be indispensable.
| justinrubek wrote:
| I don't think it's the features that are lacking from the
| alternatives. It's the network effects.
| iN7h33nD wrote:
| Have you seen: https://forgejo.org/
| neilv wrote:
| I like what I've used of Forgejo (Git, Issues+Board, Wiki),
| and have hosted it on servers and localhost easily. I haven't
| tried its CI features yet.
|
| Codeberg is a cloud site for open source projects that runs
| Forgejo.
|
| Forgejo is a fork of Gitea, which is another option,
| especially if you want commercial support, but I haven't
| tried it yet.
|
| I also kinda like GitLab, both the cloud one and the
| enterprise on-prem version. And their issue label features
| work more easily with the board than Forgejo's (automatically
| moving issues between columns based on scoped labels). Though
| their pricing tiers have been unfortunate at times (I don't
| know latest).
| gazook89 wrote:
| Any time I see this topic brought up, two things are always
| mentioned: the "hub" part, meaning the discoverability and
| social aspect, and the "network effect" of having everyone use
| a single service (so everyone already has an account and they
| don't have to create additional account for every self-hosted
| project.
| tracker1 wrote:
| Agreed, it's definitely the network cohesion that keeps GH
| together. Especially for FLOSS. For advanced features, there
| are some niceties that say Azure DevOps offers that GH
| Enterprise still lacks, though it feels like there's some
| convergence on the backend.
|
| I like GH Actions myself, though sometimes it can get a
| little cumbersome with self-hosted workers on
| private/enterprise projects. I'm a big fan of automation and
| like to keep related bits closer together. As opposed to
| alternatives that have completely detached
| workflows/deployments.
| sneak wrote:
| I use and love Gitea. Why not contribute to that or the other
| fork vs making another?
| sashank_1509 wrote:
| I'm at Google, we have a million + file codebase. Every piece of
| code is snapshotted (no need to commit, automatic snapshot
| whenever a change is made). Every line of code has its own unique
| URL (this is for your branch too, not just overall). Background
| tests running nonstop hourly. Never seen any downtime. The infra
| at Google is insane
| chaz6 wrote:
| Without manual commits, is there any way to record the
| intention of each change?
| sashank_1509 wrote:
| Yes you can still commit as a logical delineation of changes.
| And every commit is automatically a PR, folding multiple
| commits is possible but not the common workflow, they prefer
| just reviewing and approving each commit.
| Balinares wrote:
| There are manual commits, they're just called changelists.
| sequin wrote:
| GitHub is a completely different scale. If Google hadn't wasted
| its opportunities to become the prime source code platform
| they'd also have issues.
| CoderJoshDK wrote:
| With continued reliability issues and the CEO stepping down, now
| feels like such an opportune time for a competitor to start
| taking market share. I sure am rooting for it!
|
| For the longest time, I thought that there was absolutely no way
| for some of these corner stone companies (slash tech) to be
| toppled. And I'm very impressed with their ability to destroy
| consumer trust!
| colechristensen wrote:
| Sadly gitlab lacked focus especially on software quality.
| shrinks99 wrote:
| Between Tangled, GitLab, Codeburg (Forgejo), and Gitea there's
| quite a lot of decent alternatives now compared to when GitHub
| first sold to MS. Having the entire world of FOSS integrated in
| one development platform was convenient but I'm more excited by
| the possibilities for more innovation in the space.
| Lammy wrote:
| And Phorge! (former Phabricator, and my favorite)
| https://we.phorge.it/
| alphazard wrote:
| Everyone impacted by this outage should take a look at Radicle,
| which was also on the front page today.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44874945
|
| I'm not affiliated with Radicle in any way. I am just impressed
| with the technology.
| joshred wrote:
| Sooo....
|
| What's the consensus on gitlab?
| tracker1 wrote:
| I've used their public site for a few private projects, mostly
| in habit from when private projects in GH were limited to paid
| accounts. The collaboration was a bit better at that time imo.
|
| I'm not sure that I would choose it for self-hosting over
| gitea, forgejo or straight up ssh+git on a remote system, which
| works well enought for a personal backup target.
| mattbruv wrote:
| This is just embarrassing for them, especially whoever is in
| charge of pull requests.
| sigio wrote:
| Just completed one or our (quarterly) github exports before this
| hit... If people are looking into extracting everything from
| their organisations, i've published the scripts I use:
| https://github.com/sigio/github-export
| irthomasthomas wrote:
| Any one else smile for a moment when they saw their issues list
| empty? Don't rush to fix it ;)
| gdcbe wrote:
| Maybe they should focus less on "agentic" and more on just
| keeping their core product solid... I suppose that doesn't rhyme
| with growth at all cost... zzz sad... it is
| asim wrote:
| Too many unnecessary features at this point perhaps. Self hosting
| might be a good alternative. Don't need the UI.
| JyB wrote:
| I'm really wondering what internally causes this. No one likes it
| when they have outages, but it keeps happening. Is this a culture
| thing? Like pressure to ship features fast? Some under staffed
| teams or lack of ownership on some crucial components?
| tracker1 wrote:
| Definitely all good questions. I've noticed that there seems to
| be a bit of convergence between Azure DevOps and Github
| (Enterprise) and am curious how co-mingled the teams or
| management are at any given level or not.
|
| I'm mixed on the cultural changes at MS and have historically
| preferred GH's approach. I'm hoping MS moves closer to GH than
| the reverse. I'm not working with/at either company and don't
| really have a lot of insights to offer other than observations
| from the outside.
| jewel wrote:
| I used to work at a place that had a second copy of all the git
| repositories on a server, available over ssh. We could push there
| and then, at deploy time, instruct the servers to pull from that
| repo instead of bitbucket.
|
| If I were to set up the same thing again today, I'd add some
| automation to automatically keep it in sync with github as well
| as automate the servers so that they'd attempt to pull from both
| on every deploy.
|
| I share this as an idea for those who need an emergency or backup
| deploy mechanism.
| yoyohello13 wrote:
| Just saying. Our company has been on self-hosted Gitlab for
| years. We have one devops guy who spends like an hour a month
| managing the server. Never one outage.
| jonator wrote:
| If you're reading this there's a great opportunity to pull a
| Linear move and disrupt the entrenched players with a 10x better
| UX. Although the hardest nut to crack here are the network
| effects.
| demarq wrote:
| What's the hardest part of making a git hosting service?
| Culonavirus wrote:
| There's a book about this.
| https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9211847-how-hard-can-it-...
| Aldipower wrote:
| Used and using Gitlab with success in all of my companies. It is
| maybe a bit boring and a little bit slow, but it is enterprise
| and has everything you need. Included time on the market..
| e-dant wrote:
| I like github
| WhyNotHugo wrote:
| The linked page doesn't say much. Just "increased latency". No
| more details than that. Am I missing something?
| alfiedotwtf wrote:
| Didn't GitHub fire a bunch of developers recently because AI was
| a silver bullet?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-08-12 23:02 UTC)