I see a lot of hate for GitHub after Microsoft, but there were many big improvement that I think outweigh some instability, especially for smaller companies or open source projects. Free private repos and free GitHub actions. The UI is also pretty nice and clean. I think GitHub is still one of the best options to host your code.
Can confirm 500s. Not sure what is happening but to me it feels like Github became pretty unreliable in the last 2-3 years. I remember several occasions when teams and whole companies I worked at were basically blocked by Github/Actions/Whatever funny service they were paying for.<p>From those experiences I wouldn't recommend Github anymore because I really question the benefit of having a blackbox-as-a-service you're fully locked into kinda randomly failing, IIRC correctly Actions was down 2y ago for 1-2 days which is like, a lot these days.
I wonder if developers have realised already how unreliable GitHub has been since Microsoft acquired them. I expect them to have an incident every month. Just look at their greatest recent hits: here [0] and [1]<p>It's no wonder why going all in on Github makes absolutely no sense. Like I said years ago, it is better to just self-host or mirror your repository to GitHub.<p>Blender surely did choose wisely [2] and perhaps this is the time to self-host your repositories and not 'centralize everything to GitHub' [3]<p>[0] <a href="https://www.githubstatus.com/history" rel="nofollow">https://www.githubstatus.com/history</a><p>[1] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32752965" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32752965</a><p>[2] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34700390" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34700390</a><p>[3] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22867803" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22867803</a>
I saw this yesterday (<a href="https://freeradical.zone/@tek/109876335075879967" rel="nofollow">https://freeradical.zone/@tek/109876335075879967</a>), although their status page was all green. I ran a command line like:<p><pre><code> for i in (seq 10); git clone https://me:api_key@github.com/… foo; rm -rf foo; sleep 5; end
</code></pre>
Out of those 10 clones, 2 of them succeeded, and 8 failed (evenly split between 2 different error messages). I opened a trouble ticket because our CI server was driving us nuts with alerts. The status was never anything but all green, though.
It seems intermittent for me when browsing repositories, both public and internal/private ones. Normally works every 4/5th refresh, but I might be partially responsible for making it worse.
I run a Gitea server on my (home lab) file server. At one point I ran a second server in parallel during a migration. It was pretty straight forward to configure projects to use two servers in parallel. But 99% of my usage is to simply store a copy of my files. Occasionally I file an issue as a reminder. I wonder how difficult it is for users of more advanced features such as CI/CD pipelines to duplicate that functionality either on other public servers (Gitlab? Bitbucket?) or a self hosted server.
This is a better URL for this incident: <a href="https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/t2xwk9mz56f4" rel="nofollow">https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/t2xwk9mz56f4</a><p>Everything is currently marked as "degraded", but in reality the entire website is returning 500s.
> green is experiencing degraded availability. We are still investigating and will provide an update when we have one.<p>Anyone knows what service is called green.
<a href="https://www.githubstatus.com/history" rel="nofollow">https://www.githubstatus.com/history</a><p>So far in February there have been 14 incidents. Today is February 17. If you do the math, 14 ÷ 17 = a lot of fucking downtime.
Either this is Ruby on Rails in all of its glory, or their infrastructure and ops need a lot of attention.<p>GitHub is definitely down more often in the last couple of years though. It's noticeable. Hope they figure it out.