| |
| ▲ | politelemon 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is very worrying if their mandate doesn't include quality control. | | | |
| ▲ | khaledh 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I figured that it would be something like that. But it's been so frequent that I expect the leadership to act decisively towards a long-term reliability plan. Unfortunately they have near monopoly in this space, so I guess there's not enough incentive to fix the situation. | | |
| ▲ | gobalini 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | How frequent? I think the obsession with uptime is annoying. If GitHub is down, if there’s something so critical, then you need some more control of the system. Otherwise take a couple hours and get a coffee or an early lunch. | | |
| ▲ | khaledh 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Frequent enough to interrupt the flow of an entire organization, wasting thousands of hours. Take a look: https://mrshu.github.io/github-statuses | | |
| ▲ | gobalini an hour ago | parent [-] | | Yeah that is pretty bad I guess. For decades 99% has been achievable for many orgs. 92% phew. But “waste” is arguable. If folks have literally nothing to do when GitHub is down, I question that a bit. For example, design, administrative work (everyone has that), lunch. You know? Critical CI/CD can use Jenkins, but in that case folks might end up with 89% uptime! | | |
| ▲ | khaledh 26 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > If folks have literally nothing to do when GitHub is down, I question that a bit. It's not about a single person. I work at a company with over 10k employees, most of them rely on GitHub one way or another. It's not just about PRs and issues; there's a huge amount of automation, workflows, and integrations that depend on GitHub, round the clock. With this kind of uptime it has material impact on productivity of the company as a whole. |
|
|
|
|
|
