|
| ▲ | zipy124 a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| But the amount of compute needed to serve is not very high. It's all text. The amount of bandwidth and compute needed to serve a Netflix or YouTube is far far harder and they managed just fine. |
| |
| ▲ | jedberg a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Netflix and YouTube both built custom CDNs. Netflix uses AWS for control plane only. Also, respectfully, you have no idea what you're talking about. "Just text" doesn't make it easy to solve. GitHub Actions aren't just text and take a lot of compute. | |
| ▲ | mghackerlady a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | they also aren't using azure. IDK what youtube is on, but netflix has actually faced their problems and found solutions (freebsd, mostly) | |
| ▲ | the_sleaze_ a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | They should migrate to AWS. Its webscale |
|
|
| ▲ | giwook a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I wouldn't feel too bad for them with their top-of-market comp and valuable RSU packages. |
| |
| ▲ | jedberg a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't believe they pay top of market, but even if they did, it's possible to make a lot of money and still feel bad when you have a sense of ownership and responsibility to the users of your service. | | |
| ▲ | giwook a day ago | parent [-] | | You missed my point. | | |
| ▲ | jedberg a day ago | parent [-] | | Apparently so did everyone else. What was your point? | | |
| ▲ | giwook a day ago | parent [-] | | The comment I responded to said they felt bad for GH employees. I was saying I don't feel all that bad given they are well-compensated white collar workers (like many of us here). Life is pretty good if one's biggest concern is work stuff and you're not personally in danger or actively being harmed. That's all I'm saying. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | batshit_beaver a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | GitHub doesn't pay top of market. | | |
| ▲ | giwook a day ago | parent [-] | | You're right. That being said, 300k TC for E4 is still pretty good. Plus the RSUs have gone up like 60% in the last several years so that 300k package from a few years ago is maybe 350k or more by now. My point is that they are compensated well. They should be feeling pressure to get this stuff right when their product is core infrastructure for a majority of the digital products that exist today. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | JamesSwift a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I just dont really buy the explanation though. It seems so solvable to hack a throttle or something in place, especially for non-paid plans. The cracks were also showing before AI hit the scene. Im not saying this is the end-game solution but absolutely they could have put temporary safeguards in place while they "figure it out" if it _really_ is just AI driven slop setting their computers on fire. |
|
| ▲ | Scubabear68 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| "AI coders submitting 25 PRs within an hour of an issue being filed, GitHub bears the brunt of that....". What "brunt"? These are not large numbers. |
| |
| ▲ | jedberg a day ago | parent [-] | | Before AI coding, a GitHub issue might get one or two PRs after six months. AI coding has made this orders of magnitude bigger. The individual numbers are small, but they add up quickly. | | |
| ▲ | Scubabear68 a day ago | parent [-] | | Maybe I am really dense, but a single issue getting 2 vs 25 PRs seems to be no practical difference. | | |
| ▲ | jedberg a day ago | parent [-] | | Well two in six months vs 25 in one hour. So that's a 54,000x increase. But also, each PR kicks off a bunch of CI work, often in GitHub Actions. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | jcgrillo a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The whole "anyone can submit a PR" thing has been a UX issue from day one. That probably needs to go away, and I doubt anyone would really miss it. Where Github could help is by providing a means to build trust that doesn't involve random unknown people slinging code at projects. |
| |
| ▲ | jedberg a day ago | parent [-] | | Any sort of trust requirement would break the entire model and cause some serious inequality. How would a random kid in a 3rd world country ever get noticed enough to enter a trust circle, for example? | | |
| ▲ | roadbuster a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > would break the entire model The "model" - GH effectively allowing an overload of their infra - is already broken > How would a random kid in a 3rd world country ever get noticed enough to enter a trust circle By submitting a quality change with a clear description, preferably with unit tests? Is that no longer considered an acceptable hurdle? | | |
| ▲ | jedberg a day ago | parent [-] | | > By submitting a quality change with a clear description, preferably with unit tests? Is that no longer considered an acceptable hurdle? But the proposal is to specifically disallow that unless the person is already known. That is the model today, the one that people want to get rid of. | | |
| ▲ | roadbuster a day ago | parent [-] | | I think you are taking an excessive interpretation of what was suggested. Let's level-set on the issue: Of late, GH has suffered a continuous stream of noteworthy outages. It is hypothesized the underlying cause of the instability has been the dramatic rise in submissions from coding agents ("AI"). The open question is how (or whether) GH can get load at a manageable level, with the proposal being, 'don't immediately allocate build/compute resources against any and all submissions.' I don't see why that is equivalent to rampant disenfranchisement in the open source community. I believe what people have in mind is closer to, "don't immediately trigger an expensive build process as soon as someone submits a pull request." | | |
| ▲ | jcgrillo 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | > "don't immediately trigger an expensive build process as soon as someone submits a pull request." Yes, and I'd add to that "don't immediately trigger an expensive review process". There's no good reason maintainers should have to be on the hook for screening submissions from the entire general public (including all the various OpenClaws or whatever)... It's an absolutely unreasonable thing to ask of anyone. So Github has the opportunity to both protect their own uptime and do a decent thing for the community by solving this problem. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | jcgrillo a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's a hard problem! I don't know. But when we select colleagues we build trust before we let them in the building by interviewing them, looking at their work, checking their references. So maybe there's some sort of analogous process that isn't just "here's a big PR, look at it" that would be useful? If there was such a process, maybe that kid could go through it and become trusted. EDIT: from Github's selfish perspective, this would gatekeep their CI load. I assume (I have no idea, it's just a guess) that mostly serving source code and handling commits is not primarily the scale problem. Instead (again just guessing) probably the vast majority of the compute load due to PRs is running all the CI checks. Nontrivial projects can spawn a hell of a lot of compute per PR, and on every subsequent commit pushed while the PR is open. |
|
|
