I was surprised that incident didn’t seem to get as much attention since that was a pretty major data corruption bug, but I guess it was a much smaller scope of impacted repos/customers than a lot of these availability issues?

▲

dclowd9901 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Without reaching for my tin foil hat, I have a feeling MS is able to suppress these incidents somehow, because yeah, that one was pretty bad.

▲

bonesss 2 days ago | parent [-]

Wrapping my face in tinfoil: across the board, Amazon, Microsoft, GitHub, Anthropic and OpenAI, I’m seeing a lot of top-level service issues that sound an awful lot like code hitting production that hasn’t been fully tested.

Breaking buttons on the website is one thing, kinda, but Enterprise used to mean a certain degree of robustness and seriousness in product management.

	▲	serial_dev a day ago \| parent [-]
		Devs are expected to ship slop 10x faster. The AI tools genuinely help a bit, like maybe 2x, but the 10x "improvement" comes from not thinking about anything else than shipping your assigned features, not testing your code carefully, not getting proper code reviews, not dogfooding your stuff, and releasing carelessly.

▲

MarkMarine 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Definitely got attention during the prod outage at my work. I’m going to find another alternative, I’m sick of this terrible uptime.

▲

yearolinuxdsktp 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Merge queues are not as frequently used… ~2000 PRs affected over 4 hours. I reckon that’s on the order of 10 commits per tenant. It’s a feature with low traction, probably because it creates more problems than it solves.

	▲	move-on-by 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Merge queues are great. The bug only affected repos using merge queues AND squash/rebase merging (instead of the default merge commit)