Wanting to leave is not the same as actually leaving. I can imagine small teams leaving because moving a 10-30 member team is easy. If you have a dev team with 500 members and the team has been on GitHub for 10 years, you will just take it because migrating is just a PITA.

▲

anaqin a day ago | parent [-]

> If you have a dev team with 500 members and the team has been on GitHub for 10 years

This so closely describes my company. We’re so fed up with GHA that we’re charting an off ramp. It’s been happening in the background for a few months already but whenever there is a major outage I swear we add one more person to effort.

Migrating sucks but so does having 500 engineers who can’t do any coding work for a day every {month,week}

▲

grim_io a day ago | parent [-]

Not trying to be an ass, but the core git principle is decentralization and local copies.

Maybe it will help to return to a more git oriented workflow instead of a GitHub oriented one.

	▲	anaqin 21 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think I was imprecise in my last message. When GitHub actions has an outage, engineers at my company can and do still write code. No one can merge though and we aren’t able to deploy (like we normally do) so we very quickly get a huge backlog of PRs that need to be tested / reviewed etc. People generally just pivot towards reviewing code at this point (or doing other non coding work) When GH has an outage like yesterday, we cant even formally review code. Sure, people could pull others branches and read them and discuss in chat but a dedicated tool for distributed code review is pretty important for most teams. It wasn’t that long ago we were a small company and GH’s reliability wasn’t such a nightmare so using it for what it offers made a lot of sense for the business. The calculus has changed recently.