1) someone who is adversely affected by software hosted there
2) someone who sells source code hosting and sees GitHub as competitor
3) someone wanting to demonstrate fragility of software that relies on GitHub for underlying package management (such as NPM)
4) someone wanting to disrupt a blog that uses GitHub as the data store
It seems that page must be manually updated or very slow to update. I noticed gists weren't working for what seemed like 15 minutes or more before it acknowledged there was an issue.
Even now it lists all services as available even though the top message indicates a major disruption.
For those who use Github as their primary origin server AND perform deploys via git, do you have redundancy measures in place to enable you to keep pushing code even during these outages?
Having a bitbucket mirror isn't a bad idea. They have free private repos for up to 5 users, so if you just have an admin and the deploy user on there you can get redundancy for "free". Just have to keep it in sync, but that shouldn't be too hard with DVCS and everyone having a local copy.
Who cares? By the time this item gets upvotes the sites are almost always fixed. Is this hacker news worthy? I suggest we ban these submissions. This is the second, X is down notice today, Github [1] and Dropbox [2]. Personally, I'd much prefer a submission to https://status.github.com/ with a comment about the Major service outage. Posting the Github.com link is next to useless.
I think it's fine to post about outages - that's relevant news, and even if site is back up, always results in relevant and theoretically good discussion.
I do agree that linking to the URL that's down is a special kind of stupid. At that point, it's a non-link, and there's little value in watching my browser spin.
100% FullAck : Who cares! Git is a DISTRIBUTED VCS exactly for this reason, so there is absolutely _no point at all_ to bother HN unless its a full outage lasting longer than 1 day.
32 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 68.9 ms ] thread1) someone who is adversely affected by software hosted there 2) someone who sells source code hosting and sees GitHub as competitor 3) someone wanting to demonstrate fragility of software that relies on GitHub for underlying package management (such as NPM) 4) someone wanting to disrupt a blog that uses GitHub as the data store
etc
Even now it lists all services as available even though the top message indicates a major disruption.
If you use a hosted Continuous Delivery system like https://circleci.com (which is my company), it's really easy to do.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5793948
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5792510
I do agree that linking to the URL that's down is a special kind of stupid. At that point, it's a non-link, and there's little value in watching my browser spin.