They're claiming a huge increase in traffic due to vibe coded projects. It might just be an excuse, but it certainly seems plausible to me.

You can cancel the migration, no need for sunk cost fallacy.

Azure repos are kinda fine. It's really basic and there is nothing to break. I actually really really like their ticketing thingy for the same reason. It has the necessary stuff and the management types can't add a million of fields to it and annoy me with reporting, burndown charts or what not.

i might be connecting unrelated dots, yet when i read "migration to Azure" this came back to me

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47616242 https://isolveproblems.substack.com/p/how-microsoft-vaporize...

If you’re making this change now, I wonder how the technical leadership evaluated GitHub and its competitors.. and then still landed on GH.

What made it better than e.g GitLab?

I'm on the other side of the fence. We're just about done migrating from GitHub to GitLab (self-hosted) and it's been refreshing to DGAF about any of the GH outages I read about.

Artifacts - C'mon Wit Da Git Down

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js_Y_q-IkYo

Mee too. We just did a very similar migration at work it's incredibly frustrating, I've got all my CI ported over and now this.

MSFT should just create slophub.com they'd make money im sure.

Why do you care about github? It’s Just another corporation doing what they know best: harvesting money. The software ecosystem can live without github just fine

Github uptime down to 86% according to https://mrshu.github.io/github-statuses/ (not my website)

`curl https://api.github.com/users/YOUR_USER_HERE` then look for the id in the payload. "id": 2851

Or look at the html source of your avatar, https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2851?v=4

go to a profile and open image in new tab, the URL is /u/# (im # ~4 million!)

It shows up in API responses when you look up your own user.

„I don’t use any of GitHub’s non-git features, so if you use them you have a problem”

>if he wasn’t who he was and you read these comments, you’d think this person had a problem. So, I think he does.

Honestly, I thought you were demeaning him to defend GitHub. But after reading the article, it does seem like his emotional reaction is not aligned with the situation. Just saying it openly for others who get the same impression I did.

That said, GitHub can be a full time job for many (handling and responding issues, reviews, and so on, depending on the size of the project). It's also not unheard of to have PR descriptions and comments as part of documentation rather than commit messages. So GitHub's availability is certainly extremely disruptive to many companies.

> I, too, am a fairly, but not immediate early user of GitHub. Despite GitHub’s poor metrics, I am still shipping, because writing software doesn’t require GitHub.

GitHub’s downtime is a problem for issue tracking, PR merging, contributing and reviewing PRs, and more.

Your exact point was already pre-addressed in the blog post because it’s so predictable that some would completely miss the point. GitHub’s downtime isn’t about stopping you from writing code on your own machine.

> Hashimoto’s comments sound disturbed and I hope he finds some peace, but if he wasn’t who he was and you read these comments, you’d think this person had a problem. So, I think he does.

What a gross ad hominem about someone’s mental health. How is this comment from a brand new account attacking bragging about being a top 1% developer, missing the point of a blog post, and then doing ad hominem attacks calling someone disturbed the top voted comment right now?

The entrenchment here is ridiculous. The average software engineer does not care at all about their vcs or their forge and their knowledge of both is extremely shallow.

For the people who want to do their work and get on with their life, it does not really matter that much.

I'm a bit out of the loop, why are people moving away from Github?

do we have already an HN user creating "who-left-gh.net"? (domain is free)

The purchase wasn't a year ago, it was 8 years ago. In that time how much has it grown? 10x? 100x? More?

Yes, of course, but also more recently under the new CoreAI unit: https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-ai-coding-rivals-o...

That can happen many times during a buyout. Some company buys a thing. The problem then is ownership of the thing. Who in the new company is going to own the 'make sure it stays good' problem. Sometimes with a buy out the people who were doing that may even stay at the company. But it is a matter of motivation. MS has a real serious problem. You can see the gaps where they have glued together at least 10 companies together and called it microsoft. They have a huge reputational risk issue. Where something breaking in the xbox div can have a negative impact on the tools division. Also the other way around. They lack focus on many items. They have needed a 'service pack 2' stop the presses moment and fix this mount everest of tech debt.

I think is more related to vibe coding

Even after decades, the policy is the same:

Embrace, extend, and extinguish.

It is absolutely not just you

Is it just me, or [thing that has been repeated a billion times every day on this and every other website]

Take a sentence for a title, replace one of the verbs with SLAM, LAMBAST and CLAPS BACK, you're hired.

The rest of the article can be AI generated, don't fret about it.

Have you tried asking an LLM?

M$ bought GH almost a decad ago. Instability is more due to mainstream traffic, combined (+ AI automation pushes on pointless repos) than some slow motion evil mastermind plot. Hanlon's razor applies.

Microslop turned GitHub to gitslop.

I haven't seen anyone faking surprise, or even genuinely surprised, what are you referring to?

Their stability and reliability has deteriorated significantly.

So much so that they stopped posting uptime metrics for a while on their status page and an independent 3rd party created a website just for this:

https://mrshu.github.io/github-statuses/ (not my website)

According to that website, which unsurprisingly reports a lower number than what Github themselves claim, Github uptime is down to ~86%.

And if you work in the space, you know how terrible that is, but even more so for such a critical piece of infrastructure.

It's more if you use it for things beyond traditional dev work. GitHub Actions have become very unstable plus someone using it at this level where people are trying to download/ file issues/ send code up 24/7 would feel the pain of every outage, not just those that happen during one's working hours.

> and PRs and code reviews are the same as it’s always been

When they changed the PR view to not display all the changes at once, was the moment I said "I really need to find something else", not only is the platform very unreliable (at least from Spain), but most product changes they do are making the platform less efficient for me as a developer to use.

> Can someone explain what exactly is so bad now that leaving it entirely to use some new platform, even spinning up your own servers, is a reasonable alternative?

It always was, but network-effect of GitHub been large. But seemingly not infinite, at one point people start favoring "Being able to access platform" over "people can star my repository" it seems.

When using it every day (and especially when using Github Actions), there's something broken or half-broken nearly every day.

Most random errors in Github Actions (e.g. jobs just randomly failing or getting stuck and requiring a manual restart, or just being plain slow) also never show up on the Github Status page. The Github Actions VMs are also so slow that I'm seriously pondering setting up a cheap throw-away laptop at home as runner, that would easily be 10x faster. But then we're at playing IT admin at home :/

I’m a relatively casual user of GitHub and even I’ve run into availability issues when pushing up changes. Your comment makes it sound like you don’t use GitHub much at all or maybe are in some time zone or AZ that’s somehow insulated.

something reliably breaks 7 am PST (sometimes earlier) if you're using anything more than the git command line and sometimes (not too often, true) even the git protocol breaks.

They have less uptime than my home NAS, this is the #1 thing that is wrong with it.

And the most recent bug is "we added random code to some PR and some PR became invisible" which is a wtf bug which should be impossible to exist.

GitLab has been doing better than GitHub for a decade or more.

TLDR; don't use their SaaS offering, but probably better, yes, though who knows for how long.

I don't use their SaaS offering, but I've been using the self-hosted versions (mostly in CE flavours, but occasionally paid) since the days of the weird black and white fox, when gitlab looked very bootstrap-y. (The logo in question for the curious, but you can't unsee it: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Gitlab_l... )

Anyway, since LLMs for coding became a thing, coupled with the realities of running a business post-IPO, it's been a slow-ish downward trend for the self-hoster, as their offering gets more and more bloat that's likely easier to manage at scale for Gitlab, but stands in stark contrast to what it once was.

Little things are pilling up; components left for dead (we now have both TODO - which is an abysmal mess, and "assigned work items" - WHY?!), issue boards that remain messy, advertisements creeping into the CE version, increasingly wild hardware requirements... and some recent changes to their documentation that strike me as a dark pattern; very much a recognition that either you're an enterprise running your own paid GitLab, with some kind of support, or you're a SaaS user and don't GAF about the ops docs.

The transition to websockets was annoying. Mostly because it kinda-doesn't work and there's no decent polling fallback, which results in time wasted hitting refresh, in 2026, when everything worked fine from 201x-2025.

I've kept my eye out for alternatives, but Gitlab's CI/CD, and the self hosted runners, is still my preferred flavour hands down and continues to be the reason I stick around.

Overall, it's a much slower decline, but like all stock-market-centric companies, you can feel the writing on the wall. Nevertheless, we're in the middle of a Gitlab migration from one cloud provider to anther because we still haven't found something better. :/

I wonder if there's a place for something like matrix, but for repositories (or maybe matrix protocol can handle that?). A world where we have selfhosted, saas, etc, but all interlinked and searchable? Say I find a project on gitlab, I want to contribute to, I checkout to my personal server (or someone elses hosted), and raise a pr back to original repo. I know it doesn't answer your question, just thinking aloud really.

tangled, forgejo, radicle, sourcehut - to name a few

Different places. Stop centralising the web. Embrace diversity.

Just FYI Blizzcon is returning in September.

https://blizzcon.com/en-us/event/

I don’t think this is true across Blizzard. Overwatch is the best it’s ever been.

> See what players think about the latest World of Warcraft patch. It's absolutely shit and broken

Crazy to me that the loot tables are still broken for some players/characters, they've tried to fix it several times now, and it's still not working - Since (some) endgame gear can only be obtained this way they've effectively soft locked those players/character out of the endgame.

Context: Some players are always receiving the same drops i.e. a belt. Rather than a varied loot table that gives them a chance to get items they need.

Exactly why does it keep happening, why is the default strategy find golden goose, kill goose, look for new geese

The thing is that they didn't buy Blizzard, they bought Activision. They were interested in CoD numbers.

I think Diablo Immortal was likely the biggest success Blizz provided there