Putting the obvious facetiousness of this whole endeavor aside, doing something like this would mean that your reliability record is exactly as good as GHA

▲

nikisweeting 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's ok, I hear they recently hit 5 9s of reliablility again! (89.9999%)

▲

vasco 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You misunderstand, this only deploys, has nothing to do with runtime.

▲

bravetraveler 8 hours ago | parent [-]

You misunderstand, (continued) runtime is dependent on the ability to deploy. For instance: a vulnerability is realized or a customer needs something (availability, feature, who knows), you'll appreciate handles under your control. Service can easily degrade, without.

I've done this same thing, GHA as a control plane. It was for people who could wait; the actual operators regularly skipped the middleman. Preference or necessity, take your pick.

▲

vasco 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Runtime is separate from deployment. An incident in your deployment infra doesn't affect production. The fact that you may have to deploy to change what's live is what defines it as an incident, but it's still a different thing from a production incident.

▲

bravetraveler 6 hours ago | parent [-]

From "nothing to do with" to "separate", I'd say we're making progress.

Deployment is how you fix problems with the runtime. Not just availability, shortcomings. I'm not going back and forth about this, there is a relationship here. Man architects, God laughs.

Here's a fun phrase to latch onto: 'escape', production is the test environment we all share.

GitHub goes down, yes, your service remains. For now. We chose to not wait, suggest others don't either. I agree in spirit with the GP. Misfortune is the fortune that never misses.

Their nines aren't yours, you bet.

	▲	5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]