[HN Gopher] Another GitHub outage in the same day
___________________________________________________________________
Another GitHub outage in the same day
Author : Nezteb
Score : 226 points
Date : 2026-02-09 19:07 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.githubstatus.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.githubstatus.com)
| vampiregrey wrote:
| At this point, GitHub outages feel closer to cloud provider
| outages than a SaaS blip. Curious how many people here still run
| self-hosted Git (GitLab / Gitea) vs fully outsourcing version
| control.
| betaby wrote:
| Self hosted GitLab is absolutely worth it.
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| Self-hosted git is absolutely worth it.
| monkaiju wrote:
| or forgejo!
| zhouzhao wrote:
| Yeah man. Forgejo (albeit it being a weird name from a
| language that nobody wants to use), is doing very well in
| my homelab.
|
| When I worked at the univerity we used Gitea.
|
| Every job outside of univerity I had used Gitlab self
| hosted. While I don't like the UI or any aspect of Gitlab a
| lot, it gets the job done.
| zer00eyz wrote:
| I use Gitea already... I haven't seen Forejo before
| today. Im now curious if it is worth the switch.
| terminalbraid wrote:
| Forejo was originally forked from Gitea
| DeepYogurt wrote:
| Forgejo should 100% be people's default for self hosting
| edverma2 wrote:
| I was just looking into this today but it seems pricey.
| $29/user/month for basic features like codeowners and
| defining pr approval requirements. Going with Forgejo.
| 1f60c wrote:
| Wait, what? So you're on the hook for backups, upgrades,
| etc. and you have to pay them for the privilege? I thought
| GitLab was free as in speech _and_ beer.
| cyberax wrote:
| It's an Open Core model. You can deploy the free version,
| but it lacks some pretty important features like SSO.
|
| But that $30 per month per user is also the cost for
| their cloud-hosted version. It also includes quite a bit
| of CI/CD runtime.
| vampiregrey wrote:
| I think i will slowly start moving to self hosted git intra
| at my homelab.
| blibble wrote:
| forgejo doesn't need half a supercomputer to run it
| neilv wrote:
| Yay for GitLab and Forgejo/Gitea.
|
| My previous two startups used GitLab successfully. The smaller
| startup used paid-tier hosted by gitlab.com. The bigger startup
| (with strategic cutting-edge IP, and multinational security
| sensitivity) used the expensive on-prem enterprise GitLab.
|
| (The latter startup, I spent some principal engineer political
| capital to move us to GitLab, after our software team was
| crippled by the Microsoft Azure-branded thing that non-software
| people had purchased by default. It helped that GitLab had a
| testimonial from Nvidia, since we were also in the AI hardware
| space.)
|
| If you prefer to use fully open source, or have $0 budget,
| there's also Forgejo (forked from Gitea). I'm using it for my
| current one-person side-startup, and it's mostly as good as
| GitLab for Git, issues, boards, and wiki. The "scoped" issue
| labels, which I use heavily, are standard in Foregejo, but
| paid-tier in GitLab. I haven't yet exercised the CI features.
| arthur-st wrote:
| Self-hosted Gitea is a good time if you're comfortable taking
| care of backups and other self-hosting stuff.
| noodlesUK wrote:
| Can someone in GitHub senior leadership please start paying
| attention and reprioritise towards actually delivering a product
| that's at least relatively reliable?
|
| I moved my company over to GH enterprise last year (from AzDO)
| and I'm considering moving us away to another vendor altogether
| as a result of the constant partial outages. Things that used to
| "just work" now are slow in the UI, and GH actions fail to
| schedule in a reasonable timeframe way more than they ever used
| to. I enjoy GH copilot as much as the next person, but ultimately
| I came to GH because I needed a git forge, and I will leave GH if
| the git forge doesn't work.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| " I enjoy GH copilot as much as the next person"
|
| So not at all?
| 1f60c wrote:
| That does seem to be the implication, yes. :D
| nfg wrote:
| Really? I'd be interested to hear more.
|
| Disclaimer: I work in Microsoft (albeit in a quite
| disconnected part of it, nothing to do with GitHub or
| Copilot).
| macintux wrote:
| I've only started using it, so maybe I'm holding it wrong,
| but the other day I asked the IntelliJ plugin to explained
| two lines of code by referencing the line numbers. It
| printed & explained two entirely different lines in a
| different part of the file. I asked again. It picked two
| lines somewhere else.
|
| After using ChatGPT for the last 6 months or so, Copilot
| feels like a significant downgrade. On the other hand, it
| did easily diagnose a build failure I was having, so it's
| not useless, just not as helpful.
| 0xy wrote:
| Not even Microsoft employees like Copilot. Maybe start why
| not even your coworkers can use your own slop.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/tech/865689/microsoft-claude-
| code-a...
| sobjornstad wrote:
| I second this. GitHub used to be a fantastic product. Now it
| barely even works. Even basic functionality like the timeline
| updating when I push commits is unreliable. The other day I
| opened a PR diff (not even a particularly large one) and it
| took fully 15 seconds after the page visually finished loading
| -- on a $2,000 dev machine -- before any UI elements became
| clickable. This happened repeatedly.
|
| It is fairly stunning to me that we've come to accept this
| level of non-functional software as normal.
| kimixa wrote:
| We loved Github as a product when it needed to return or
| profit beyond "getting more users".
|
| I feel this is just the natural trajectory for any VC-funded
| "service" that isn't actually profitable at the time you
| adopt it. _Of course_ it 's going to change for the worse to
| become profitable.
| tibbar wrote:
| GitHub isn't VC funded at the moment, though. It's owned by
| Microsoft. Not that this necessarily changes your point.
| danudey wrote:
| > Of course it's going to change for the worse
|
| > It's owned by Microsoft.
|
| I see no contradictions here.
| notpushkin wrote:
| I don't get it. Why making the UI shittier would possibly
| lead to more profit?
| kimixa wrote:
| It seems most of the complaints are about the reliability
| and infrastructure - which is very much often a direct
| result of lack of investment and development resources.
|
| And then many UI changes people have been complaining
| about are related to things like copilot being forcibly
| integrated - which is very much in the "Microsoft expect
| to gain a profit by encouraging it's use" camp.
|
| It's pretty rare companies make a UI because they _want_
| a bad UI, it 's normally a second order thing from other
| priorities - such as promoting other services or
| encouraging more ad impressions or similar.
| danudey wrote:
| Moving to client-side rendering via React means less
| server load spent generating boilerplate HTML over and
| over again.
|
| If you have a captive audience, you can get away with
| making the product shittier because it's so difficult for
| anyone to move away from it - both from an engineering
| standpoint and from network effects.
| HoldOnAMinute wrote:
| The trend of "non-functional software" is happening
| everywhere. See the recent articles about Copilot in Notepad,
| failing to start because you aren't signed in with your
| Microsoft Account.
|
| We are in a future that nobody wanted.
| dylan604 wrote:
| > We are in a future that nobody wanted.
|
| Nor deserved.
| heliumtera wrote:
| Then why is it the future we have?
| its_magic wrote:
| It was a complete accident. Nobody could have foreseen
| it. We are currently experiencing the sudden discovery
| that Microsoft is an evil corporation and maybe putting
| everything in the cloud wasn't the best move after all.
| timacles wrote:
| Let's just say there are a couple of guys, who are up to
| no good. And they started making trouble in our
| neighborhood.
|
| jokes aside it's all because of hyper financial
| engineering. Every dollar every little cent must be
| maximized. Every process must be exploited and monetized,
| and there are a small group of people who are essentially
| driving all this all across the world in every industry.
| michaelcampbell wrote:
| MS PM's wanted it, got their OKR's OK'd, got their bonuses,
| and moved on.
| habitable5 wrote:
| > We are in a future that nobody wanted.
|
| _some_ people wanted this future and put in untold amount
| of money to make it happen. Hint: one of them is a rabid
| Tolkien fan.
| cyanydeez wrote:
| Rent seekers paradise (ft copilot)
| b00ty4breakfast wrote:
| the irony of Tolkien being associated with a techno-
| dystopia makes me nauseous
| amarant wrote:
| Not quite everywhere. There's a common denominator for all
| of those: Microsoft.
|
| Their business is buying good products and turning them
| into shit, while wringing every cent they can out of the
| business. Always has been.
|
| They have a grace period of about 2-4 years after
| acquisition where interference is minimal. Then it ramps
| up. How long a product can survive once the interference
| begins largely depends on how good senior leadership at
| that product company is at resisting the interference. It's
| a hopeless battle, the best you can do is to lose slowly.
| Andrex wrote:
| Things don't always ramp up after 2-4 years. Sometimes MS
| just kills the project or company after that period of
| time.
|
| See also their moves in the gaming industry.
| amarant wrote:
| Heh, I was working at 2 of those gaming companies when
| they were acquired by m$. I almost fear taking another
| job in the gaming industry, there seems to be some kind
| of bastardised version of Murphy's law that any gaming
| company that hires me will be acquired by ms 6 months
| later.
|
| I mean, that's obviously not the case, but it's weird
| that it happened twice!
| its_magic wrote:
| I for one am shocked--SHOCKED, I say!--to learn that
| anything bad could happen as a result of a) putting
| everything in "the cloud" and b) handing control over the
| entire world's source code to the likes of Microsoft.
|
| Who could have POSSIBLY foreseen any kind of dire
| consequences?
| bonesss wrote:
| This thread has complaints about software coming from the
| same supplier both degrading.
|
| The person(s) who wanted this want Azure to get bigger and
| have prioritized Azure over Windows and Office, and their
| share price has been growing handsomely.
|
| 'Microslop', perhaps, but their other nickname has a $ in
| it for a reason.
| its_magic wrote:
| _Laughs in my own Linux distro_
| sodapopcan wrote:
| Ya, it really was one of the most enjoyable web apps to use
| pre-MS. I'm sure there are lots of things that have
| contributed to this downfall. We certainly didn't need
| bullshit features like achievements.
| noodlesUK wrote:
| Even just a year or two ago its web interface was way
| snappier. Now an issue with a non-trivial number of
| comments, or a PR with a diff of even just a few hundred or
| thousand lines of changes causes my browser to lock up.
| sodapopcan wrote:
| But even clicking around tabs and whatnot is noticeably
| slower. It used to be incredibly snappy.
| samgranieri wrote:
| I've been a GitHub user since the very early days. I had a
| beta invite to the service. I really wish they didn't swap
| out the FE for a React FE.
|
| They need to start rolling back some of their most recent
| changes.
|
| I mean, if they want people to start moving to self hosted
| GitLab, this is gonna get that ball rolling.
| throw20251220 wrote:
| GitLab is slower for me than that React GH app. Why would I
| move to GitLab?
| dev_l1x_be wrote:
| So React rewrite did not help after all? Imagine, one of the
| largest software tool companies on Earth cannot reliably
| REbuild something in React. I lost count of the inconsistency
| issues React introduced.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33576722
| catigula wrote:
| React isn't causing these issues.
| dev_l1x_be wrote:
| Good to know. So it only causes the UI inconsistency
| bugs.
| danudey wrote:
| The new design/architecture allows them to do great stuff
| in the name of efficiency; for example, when browsing
| through some parts of the UI, it's now much more capable
| of just updating the part of the page that's changed,
| rather than having to reload the entire thing. This is a
| significantly better approach for a lot of things.
|
| I understand that the 'updating the part of the page
| that's changed' functionality is now dramatically slower,
| more unresponsive, and less reliable than the 'reload the
| entire thing' approach was, and it feels like browsing
| the site via Citrix over dial-up half the time, but look,
| sacrifices have to be made in the name of making things
| better even if the sacrifice is that things get worse
| instead.
| blibble wrote:
| > GitHub used to be a fantastic product. Now it barely even
| works.
|
| it's almost as if Microsoft bought it, isn't it?
| matthewisabel wrote:
| Hey from the GitHub team. Outages like this are incredibly
| painful and we'll share a post-mortem once our investigation
| is complete.
|
| It stings to have this happen as we're putting a lot of
| effort specifically into the core product, growing teams like
| Actions and increasing performance-focused initiatives on key
| areas like pull requests where we're already making solid
| progress[1]. Would love if you would reach out to me in DM
| around the perf issues you mentioned with diffs.
|
| There's a lot of architecture, scaling, and performance work
| that we're prioritizing as we work to meet the growing code
| demand.
|
| We're still investigating today's outage and we'll share a
| write up on our status page, and in our February Availability
| Report, with details on root cause and steps we're taking to
| mitigate moving forward.
|
| [1] https://x.com/matthewisabel/status/2019811220598280410
| Etheryte wrote:
| Literally everyone who has used Github to look at a pull
| request in say the last year has experienced the ridiculous
| performance issues. It's a constant laughing point on HN at
| this point. There is no way you don't know this. Inviting
| to take this to a private channel, along with the rest of
| your comment really, is simply standard corporate PR.
| matthewisabel wrote:
| Yes agreed it's been a huge problem, and we shipped
| changes last week to address some of the gnarly p99
| interactions. It doesn't fix everything and large PRs
| have a lot of room to be faster. It's still good to know
| where some worst performance issues are to see if there's
| anything particularly problematic or if a future change
| will help.
| danudey wrote:
| For what it's worth, I doubt that people think it's the
| engineering teams that are the problem; it feels as though
| leadership just doesn't give a crap about it, because,
| after all, if you have a captive audience you can do
| whatever you want.
|
| (See also: Windows, Internet Explorer, ActiveX, etc. for
| how that turned out)
|
| It's great that you're working on improving the product,
| but the (maybe cynical) view that I've heard more than
| anything is that when faced with the choice of improving
| the core product that everyone wants and needs or adding
| functionality to the core product that no one wants or
| needs and which is actively making the product worse (e.g.
| PR slop), management is too focused on the latter.
|
| What GitHub needs is a leader who is willing and able to
| say no to the forces enshittifying the product with crap
| like Copilot, but GitHub has become a subsidiary of Copilot
| instead and that doesn't bode well.
| materielle wrote:
| Hopefully the published postmortem will announce that all
| features will is frozen for the foreseeable future and
| every last employee will be focused on reliability and
| uptime?
|
| I don't think GitHub cares about reliability if it does
| anything less than that.
|
| I know people have other problems with Google, but they do
| actually have incredibly high uptime. This policy was
| frequently applied to entire orgs or divisions of the
| company if they had one outage too many.
| jbreckmckye wrote:
| As an aside, God, Azure DevOps, what a total pile of crap that
| product is
|
| My "favourite" restriction that an Azure DevOps PR description
| is limited to a pathetic 4000 characters.
| noodlesUK wrote:
| It shows you the level of quality to expect from a Microsoft
| flagship cloud product...
| jbreckmckye wrote:
| So I work for a devtools vendor (Snyk) and 6 months ago I
| signed into Azure DevOps for the first time in my life
|
| I couldn't believe it. I actually thought the product was
| broken. Just from a visual perspective it looked like a
| student project. And then I got to _using_ the damn thing
| noodlesUK wrote:
| It's also completely unloved. Even MSFT Azure's own
| documentation regularly treats it as a second class
| citizen to GitHub. I have no idea why they don't just
| deprecate the service and officially feature freeze it.
|
| Honestly that's the case with a lot of Azure services
| though.
| easton wrote:
| It's the boards. GitHub issues doesn't let you do all the
| arcane nonsense Azure DevOps' boards let you do.
| bigfudge wrote:
| Isn't that a feature?
| stackskipton wrote:
| Someone mentioned the boards but Pipelines/Actions are
| not 100% compliant.
|
| My company uses Azure DevOps for a few things and any
| attempt to convert to GitHub was quickly abandoned after
| we spent 3 hours trying to get some Action working.
|
| However, all usability quarks aside, I actually prefer
| these days since Microsoft doesn't really touch it and it
| just sits in corner doing what I need.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Amazon's deprecated CodeCommit is limited to 150 chars like
| it's an old SMS or Tweet.
| jbreckmckye wrote:
| Ha! Nice. I never worked with CodeStar / CodeCommit. Was it
| pretty bad?
| dylan604 wrote:
| That's going to depend on each user's demands. The PR
| message limit is the biggest pain for me. I don't depend
| on the UI very often. I'm not trying to do any CI/CD
| nonsense. I just use it as a bog standard git repo. When
| used as that, it works just fine for me
| tibbar wrote:
| You would kind of expect with the pressure of supporting
| OpenAI and GitHub etc. that Azure would have been whipped
| into shape by now.
| semiquaver wrote:
| AZDO has been in KTLO maintenance mode for years.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| My favourite restriction is the fact that colored text
| doesn't work in dark mode. Why? Because whatever intern they
| had implement dark mode didn't understand how CSS works, and
| just slapped !important on all the style changes that make
| dark mode dark, and thus overwrite the color data.
|
| I ended up writing a browser extension for my team to fix it,
| because the boss loved to indicate stuff with red/green text.
| wnevets wrote:
| > Can someone in GitHub senior leadership please start paying
| attention and reprioritise towards actually delivering a
| product that's at least relatively reliable?
|
| They claim that is what they are doing right now. [1]
|
| [1] https://thenewstack.io/github-will-prioritize-migrating-
| to-a...
| skywhopper wrote:
| "Migrating to Azure" is, unfortunately, often the opposite of
| "delivering a reliable product".
| semiquaver wrote:
| Zero indication that migrating to azure will improve
| stability over the colos they are in now. The outages aren't
| caused by the datacenter, whatever MS execs say.
| Andrex wrote:
| Wasn't the last one even caused by Azure?
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46861842
| amluto wrote:
| The problem with the GH front end being an unbelievably
| bloated mess will not be even slightly improved by moving to
| Azure.
| co_king_3 wrote:
| > Can someone in GitHub senior leadership please start paying
| attention and reprioritise towards actually delivering a
| product that's at least relatively reliable?
|
| It's Microsoft. A reliable product is not a reasonable
| expectation.
| rvz wrote:
| You might as well self-host at this point as that is far more
| reliable than depending on GitHub.
|
| Additionally, there is no CEO of GitHub this time that is going
| to save us here.
|
| So as I said many years ago [0] in the long term, a better way
| is to self host or use alternatives such as Codeberg or GitLab
| which at least you can self host your own.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22867803
| tibbar wrote:
| Github used to publish some pretty interesting postmortems.
| Maybe they still do. IIRC that they were struggling with
| scaling their SQL db and were starting to hit the limits. It's
| a tough position to be in because you have to either to a
| massive migration to a data layer with much different
| semantics, or you have to keep desperately squeezing
| performance and skirting on the edge of outages with a DB that
| wasn't really meant to handle what you're doing with it now.
| The OpenAI blog post on "scaling" Postgres to their current
| scale has much the same flavor, although I think they're doing
| it better than Github appears to be doing.
| bigbuppo wrote:
| Not going to happen. This is terminal decline. Next step is to
| kill off free repos, and then they'll start ratcheting up the
| price to the point that they have one small dedicated
| engineering team supporting each customer they have. They will
| have exactly one customer. At some point they'll end up owned
| by Broadcom, OpenText, Rocket, or Progress.
| tazjin wrote:
| Killing off free repos is not going to happen. That would be
| a suicide move on the level of the Digg redesign, or Tumblr's
| porn ban.
|
| It kind of would be good for everyone if they did do it
| though. Need to get rid of this monopoly, and maybe people
| will discover that there are alternatives with actually good
| workflows out there.
| bigbuppo wrote:
| They are owned by Microsoft. When has Microsoft ever had a
| good idea?
| danudey wrote:
| Buying Github seems like a good idea? But fucking it up
| wasn't, so maybe it comes out even.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Maybe take the initiative and move your own first? It
| definitely would have a bigger effect than begging here.
| gerdesj wrote:
| The ultimate irony is that Linus Thorvalds designed git with
| the Linux kernel codebase in mind to work without any form of
| infrastructure centralisation. No repo trumps any other.
|
| Surely some of your crazy kids can rummage up a CI pipeline on
| their laptop? 8)
|
| Anyway, I only use GH as something to sync interesting stuff
| from, so it doesn't get lost.
| lovich wrote:
| I wonder how many engineers have even worked on a git repo
| with multiple remotes.
|
| I've only worked on a team once where we all were set up as
| remotes to each other and that was over a decade ago.
| Wojtkie wrote:
| My org just moved to Gitlab because of the GH actions problems.
| philipallstar wrote:
| Honestly, Gitlab is pretty decent.
| alexellisuk wrote:
| I'm seeing 429s cascading downloading things like setup-buildx on
| self hosted runners. That seems odd/off.
|
| Anyone else having issues? It is blocking any kind of release
| kevmo314 wrote:
| I wonder if GitHub is feeling the crush of fully automated
| development workflows? Must be a crazy number of commits now to
| personal repos that will never convert to paid orgs.
| 1f60c wrote:
| IME this all started after MSFT acquired GitHub but well before
| vibe coding took the world by storm.
|
| ETA: Tangentially, private repos became free under Microsoft
| ownership in 2019. If they hadn't done that, they could've
| extracted $4 per month from every vibe coder forever(!)
| dizhn wrote:
| Is someone who is not really using github's free service
| losing something important?
| reactordev wrote:
| This is the real scenario behind the scenes. They are
| struggling with scale.
| jbreckmckye wrote:
| How much has the volume increased, from what you know?
| reactordev wrote:
| Over 100x is what I'm hearing. Though that could just be
| panic and they don't know the real number because they
| can't handle the traffic.
| jbreckmckye wrote:
| _One hundred_? Did I read that right?
| reactordev wrote:
| There's a huge up tick in people who weren't engineers
| suddenly using git for projects with AI.
|
| This is all grapevine but yeah, you read that right.
| 9cb14c1ec0 wrote:
| Yes, millions of people running code agents around the
| clock, where every tiny change generates a commit, a
| branch, a PR, and a CI run.
| neuropacabra wrote:
| I simply do not believe that all of these people can and
| want to setup a CI. Some maybe, but even after the agent
| will recommend it only a fraction of people would
| actually do it. Why would they?
| dmix wrote:
| Github CI is extremely easy to set up and agents can
| configure it from the local codebase.
| bredren wrote:
| An anecdote: On one project, I use a skill + custom cli
| to assist getting PRs through a sometimes long and
| winding CI process. `/babysit-pr`
|
| This includes regular checks on CI checks using `gh`. My
| skill / cli are broken right now:
|
| `gh pr checks 8174 --repo [repo] 2>&1)`
| Error: Exit code 1 Non-200 OK status code:
| 429 Too Many Requests Body: {
| "message": "This endpoint is temporarily being throttled.
| Please try again later. For more on scraping GitHub and
| how it may affect your rights, please review our Terms of
| Service (https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-
| terms/github-terms-of-service)",
| "documentation_url":
| "https://docs.github.com/graphql/using-the-rest-api/rate-
| limits-for-the-rest-api", "status": "429"
| }
| chasd00 wrote:
| So much for GitHub being a good source of training data.
|
| Btw, someone prompt Claude code "make an equivalent to
| GitHub.com and deploy it wherever you think is best. No
| questions."
| winddude wrote:
| I was wondering about that the other day, the sheer amount of
| code, repos, and commits being generated now with AI. And
| probably more large datasets as well.
| dwoldrich wrote:
| Live by the AI Agent hype, die by the AI Agent crush.
| falloutx wrote:
| We can all chill for couple weeks, Github guys take your time.
| Infact, don't even worry about it.
| Kovah wrote:
| I consider moving away from Github, but I need a solid CI
| solution, and ideally a container registry as well. Would totally
| pay for a solution that _just works_. Any good recommendations?
| swamp-agr wrote:
| https://nix-ci.com/
| dysoco wrote:
| Why this and not Garnix?
| joeskyyy wrote:
| Long time GitLab fan myself. The platform itself is quite
| solid, and GitLab CI is extremely straightforward but allows
| for a lot of complexity if you need it. They have registries as
| well, though admittedly the permission stuff around them is a
| bit wonky. But it definitely works and integrates nicely when
| you use everything all in one!
| dylan604 wrote:
| Should our repos be responsible for CI in the first place?
| Seems like we keep losing the idea of simple tools to do
| specific jobs well (unix-like) and keep growing tools to be
| larger while attempting to do more things much less well
| (microsoft-like).
| tibbar wrote:
| I think most large platforms eventually split the tools out
| because you indeed can get MUCH better CI/CD, ticket
| management, documentation, etc from dedicated platforms for
| each. However when you're just starting out the cognitive
| overhead and cost of signing up and connecting multiple
| services is a lot higher than using all the tools bundled
| (initially for free) with your repo.
| tibbar wrote:
| Lots of dedicated CI/CD out there that works well. CircleCI has
| worked for me
| cyanydeez wrote:
| GitLab can be selfhosted with container based CI and fairly
| easy to setup CE
| IshKebab wrote:
| CE is pretty good. The things that you will miss that made us
| eventually pay:
|
| * Mandatory code reviews
|
| * Merge queue (merge train)
|
| If you don't need those it's good.
|
| Also it's written in Ruby so if you think you'll ever want to
| understand or modify the code then look elsewhere (probably
| Forgejo).
| adamcharnock wrote:
| We can run a Forgejo instance for you with Firecracker VM
| runners on bare metal. We can also support it and provide an
| SLA. We're running it internally and it is very solid. We're
| running the runners on bare metal, with a whole lot of large
| CI/CD jobs (mostly Rust compilation).
|
| The down side is that the starting price is kinda high, so the
| math probably only works out if you also have a number of other
| workloads to run on the same cluster. Or if you need to run a
| really huge Forgejo server!
|
| I suspect my comment history will provide the best details and
| overview of what we do. We'll be offering the Firecracker
| runner back to the Forgejo community very soon in any case.
|
| https://lithus.eu
| hhh wrote:
| GitLab, best ci i've ever used.
| import wrote:
| Gitea / forgejo. It supports GitHub actions.
| bstsb wrote:
| my four-core VPS running a Git server has higher uptime than
| GitHub at this point
|
| (although admittedly less load and redundancy)
| chilipepperhott wrote:
| Does redundancy even matter if the end result is still poorer
| uptime?
| monkaiju wrote:
| Exactly! Also operating "at scale" is only impressive if you
| can do it with comparable speed and uptime, it doesn't mean
| much if every page takes seconds to load and it falls over
| multiple times a day lol
| nhuser2221 wrote:
| I am glad I have finally started self hosting my own git server,
| and stop worrying about github :-)
| an0malous wrote:
| Claude, make me an SCM provider
| jraph wrote:
| Sure!
|
| Do you allow me to run the following command?
| cd project; find -type f | while read f; do mv "$f" /dev/null;
| done
| tryauuum wrote:
| Don't do this It will break your /dev/null
| devy wrote:
| They were talking about prioritizing migration into Azure for a
| long while now. Not sure this incident today is related.
|
| https://thenewstack.io/github-will-prioritize-migrating-to-a...
|
| And coincidentally, an early CircleCI engineer wrote an article
| about GitHub Action (TLDR: don't use GitHub Action for CI/CD!)
|
| https://www.iankduncan.com/engineering/2026-02-05-github-act...
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46908491
| baq wrote:
| > TLDR: don't use GitHub Action for CI/CD!
|
| You should reach the same conclusion by trying to use it for
| this purpose, but also indeed for any purpose at all. Incidents
| that make you unable to deploy making all your CD efforts
| pointless are only the cherry on top.
| WhyNotHugo wrote:
| How is this "news" when it comes up multiple times a week?
|
| It's just "yet another day of business as usual" as this point.
| thomasfromcdnjs wrote:
| Someone needs to make an mcp server for my claude so it can check
| if services are down, it goes stir crazy when github is down and
| adds heaps of work around code =D
| varispeed wrote:
| Did they replace developers and devops with openclaw?
| rvz wrote:
| A great time to consider self hosting instead. Since there is no
| CEO of GitHub to contact anymore.
|
| A prophecy that was predicted half a decade ago [0] which is now
| more important then as it is now today.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22867803
| skywhopper wrote:
| This is the predictable outcome of subordinating the GitHub
| product to the overarching "AI must be part of everything whether
| it makes sense or not" mandate coming down from the top. It was
| only a year ago that GitHub was moved under the "CoreAI" group at
| Microsoft, and there's been plenty of stories of massive cost-
| cutting and forcing teams to focus on AI workflows instead of
| their actual product priorities. To the extent they are drinking
| their own Kool-Aid, this sort of ops failure is also an entirely
| predictable outcome of too much reliance on LLM-generated code
| and workflows rather than human expertise, something we see
| happening at an alarming scale in a number of public MS repos.
|
| Hopefully it will get bad enough fast enough that they'll
| recognize they need to drastically change how they are operating.
| But I fear we're just witnessing a slow slide into complacency
| and settling for being a substandard product with monopoly-power
| name recognition.
| musha68k wrote:
| Radicle moment.
| ariedro wrote:
| It would be interesting to have a graph showing AI adoption in
| coding against the number of weekly outages across different
| companies. I am sure they are quite correlated.
| the_real_cher wrote:
| I bet there's other factors that are correlated as well!
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe] Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46946827
| esafak wrote:
| No, it's a new outage -- that's the point! Check the URLs.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| That's not the point. The point is it's a duplicate
| discussion of one of a number of incident links being
| discussed, all over there.
| rpns wrote:
| Not quite, that one is an earlier outage while this one started
| at (or a bit before) 19:01 UTC.
|
| The history for today is a bit of a mess really:
| https://www.githubstatus.com/history
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| They are _all_ being discussed in that thread, the submitted
| url is just one of the various incident links on the day.
| Duplicate discussion.
| heliumtera wrote:
| Remember the other day when a bunch of yous were making fun of
| zig moving away from GitHub? Now suddenly you all say this is not
| the future you wanted.
|
| Everyday you opt in to get wrecked by Microsoft.
|
| You all do realize you all could, for a change, learn something
| and never again touch anything Microsoft related?
|
| Fool me once...
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| > You all do realize you all could, for a change, learn
| something and never again touch anything Microsoft related?
|
| I learned that lesson in the 90s and became an "ABM" (Anything
| But Microsoft).
|
| People sadly shall never learn: Windows 12 is going to come out
| and shall suck more than any previous version of Windows except
| Windows 11, so they'll see it as progress. Then Windows 13 is
| going to be an abysmal piece of crap and people shall hang to
| their Windows 12, wondering how it's possible that Microsoft
| came out with a bad OS.
|
| There are still people explaining, today, that Microsoft ain't
| all bad because Windows XP was good (for some definition of
| good). Windows XP came out in late 2001.
|
| Stockholm syndrome and all that.
| elzbardico wrote:
| Yeah, Vibe code more github!
| neuropacabra wrote:
| So far it feels they are vibe coding it day and night
| lol...probably with GitHub Copilot
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| I still say that mixing CI/CD with code/version control hosting
| is a mistake.
|
| At it's absolute best, everything just works silently, and you
| now have vendor lock-in with whichever proprietary system you
| chose.
|
| Switching git hosting providers _should_ be as easy as changing
| your remotes and pushing. Though now a days that requires finding
| solutions for the MR /PR process, and the wiki, and all the extra
| things your team might have grown to rely on. As always, the
| bundle is a trap.
| bamboozled wrote:
| I don't think any of this was a mistake ;) Lock-in was by
| design.
| monkaiju wrote:
| I mean, not necessarily proprietary right? There are OSS
| solutions like forgejo that make it pretty simple, at least as
| simple as running a git system and a standalone CI system
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| i mean that is certainly better, but I still don't like
| having them coupled. Webhooks were a great idea, and everyone
| seems to have forgotten about them.
| atonse wrote:
| I'm starting to wonder if people doing what were previously
| unconventional workflows (which may not be performance optimized)
| are affecting things.
|
| For example, today, I had claude basically prune all merged
| branches from a repo that's had 8 years of commits in it. It
| found and deleted 420 branches that were merged but not deleted.
|
| Deleting 420 branches at once is probably the kind of long tail
| workflow that was not worth optimizing in the past, right? But
| I'm sure devs are doing this sort of housekeeping often now,
| whereas in the past, we just never would've made the time to do
| so.
| sisve wrote:
| I moved everything on github to a self hosted foregjo instanse
| some days ago. I really did not do anything. Created some tokens
| so that CC could access github and forgejo and my dns API. Self
| hosting is so much simpler and easier with AI. Expect more people
| to self host small to medium stuff.
| monkaiju wrote:
| Ironic that that same AI you're mentioning is probably a large
| part of why this class of outages are increasing. Id highly
| recommend folks understand their infrastructure enough to
| setup/run it without AI before they put anything critical on
| it.
| danhon wrote:
| Isn't github in the middle of their (latest) attempt to migrate
| to Azure?[0]
|
| [0]: https://www.theverge.com/tech/796119/microsoft-github-
| azure-...
| h4kunamata wrote:
| GitLab is the solution, if you aren't on it already.
|
| I worked for one of Australia largest airline company, monthly
| meeting with Github team resumed in one word: AI
|
| There is zero focus into the actual platform as we knew it, it is
| all AI, Copilot, more AI and more Copilot.
|
| If you are expecting things to get better, I have bad news for
| you. Copilot is not being adopted by companies as they hoped,
| they are using Claude themselves. If Microsoft ever rollback, boy
| oh boy, things will get ugly.
| bsimpson wrote:
| Do they have their own model? I thought Copilot was a frontend
| for Clause et. al..
| mrshu wrote:
| This (multiple major outages a day) has unfortunately been
| happening for quite a while now -- on the 2nd of February, 2026
| for instance.
|
| The GitHub Status Page does not visualize these very well but you
| can see them parsed out and aggregated here:
|
| https://mrshu.github.io/github-statuses/
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-02-09 23:00 UTC)