GitHub is down (opens in new tab)

"Everything goes in the repo" is one of the main features of the Fossil [0] SCM which is built and used by the SQLite team. It's a neat idea and I wish something like that had caught on.

[0] https://www.fossil-scm.org/

Those who use it by emailing patches around aren't affected, ala the linux kernel.

What do you even mean? Github made a decentralized service a centralized one by encapsulating it. This “impact” isn’t the fault of Git at all.

Everything you described are features of GitHub not Git. They are not the same... despite the name.

With that in mind, your comment is similar to complaining about Jira being down, or Jenkins... they are different products.

> The fact that GitHub being down can have such an impact means that Git’s decentralised features don’t go far enough

Github was created to literally bring central server to a decentralized system. Yes, when that central server goes down, that's a problem for its users. It has nothing to do with Git.

You can, if you'd like, send Git patches in emails, or via snail mail, and you won't be influenced by any outages outside of individuals' laptops (which will affect only those individuals). Also, good luck managing your 250 microservices that way.

heh, this was my argument back in like 2009 when everyone was all, "DECENTRALIZED!! We have to take months to migrate from SVN to git cause DECENTRALIZED!! You don't one a single point of failure do you?!"

all I could say was, uhhhh github is a single point of failure. Unless you're mailing diffs around like Linus (which nobody I knew did), it's 6 of one, half-dozen of the other.

there are lots of great things about git and especially git over e.g. svn (especially merges) but I never bought the decentralization argument the way it was spearheading the conversation back then.

> The fact that GitHub being down can have such an impact means that Git’s decentralised features don’t go far enough.

This is like blaming Bitcoin for your exchange collapsing. :p

The point has been missed hardcore.

I fail to see how this is git's problem. Who was forced to use GitHub because git doesn't provide issue tracking?

That being said, Fossil has what you want. Are you willing to switch?

Our on-prem GH enterprise hasn't gone down in the last year.

Additionally any potentially disruptive work like upgrades etc can be scheduled outside of business hours so that they won't impact users

It depends on your needs and team size. For few tens of dev that need a versioning system with some sugar, a self hosted gitlab can acieve better uptime.

so true. At this moment everyone's like, well! This is UNACCEPTABLE. We'll just, we'll just... what, what are you going to do better than github?

DNS. It's always DNS

DNS, BGP, PKI, probably other TLAs.

Yeah but they probably all share DNS or something related to networking

My bet is on cache servers having a bad release

Maybe because they linked to the incident instead of just the domain homepage that other people tried to post.

so unfair. This happens to me too sometimes. It's like not a perfect system.

Happens on my GitHub issues too :/

you mean... I sense a disturbance in the source...

on May 4th too. Hmmmmm

Out of an abundance of caution...

> Status Page: https://www.githubstatus.com/ -- actually shows red -- it was almost updated as fast as HN.

I think we should applaud this when it actually happens. Far too many services are terrible for this. While I'd rather the service not be down, it makes me feel a bit better if they don't lie about it.

I'm guessing so, given the breadth of the outage.

(It's always dns.)

DNS...Developers Need Solutions

To be fair they fixed in under 20 minutes

As a previous GitHub Enterprise Server customer on a site with hundreds of users, who's spoken with a number of GitHub employees about this, I do not think that is true. They would far rather you were on GitHub Enterprise Cloud. They view Server instances as a necessary evil for people who have compliance or security requirements they can't handle with the Cloud version, but it is fairly obviously a pain in the neck for support, and attempting to attain feature parity. They have been trying to bring their Server offering closer in architecture to the Cloud version since forever (e.g. moving to Nomad a few years ago to orchestrate it all as containers, so you can shard the services out over multiple hosts similar to github.com, etc.).

> At this point maybe it is time to self-host rather than to continue to tolerate this since it's guaranteed to goes down every month.

Not a single one of these outages has caused me enough pain to even consider moving to another hosted provider let alone self-hosting and the burden that goes into managing all that stuff.

Can we stop with this whole "omg a major platform that gets used by millions of people a day can't guarantee 100% uptime, we need to all manage our own infra!!" mentality?

Seriously I've been in GitHub all morning and decided to take a break and read HN and I was JUST learning about this now... It was resolved before I seen this thread too.

Status updated 1 minute ago saying resolved so maybe they fixed it?