> Github seems to have degraded measurably after they got acquired. As is tradition.

I'm not disagreeing with you that it has degraded, however it was acquired almost 8 years ago at this point, and the software world has been turned on it's head in the last... 3?

Software generally degrades post-acquisition, I'm not denying that. Github has definitely degraded. I'm not sure I would agree that the core reason in this case is "the acquisition" and not "AI making software and free-CI-load demand 3-5 orders-of-magnitude higher than it was 3 years ago"

▲

JohnMakin 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The latest problems correlate pretty closely when they tried to migrate the entire platform onto azure in an insane timeline, something like ~1 year (for a project of that size, that's borderline insane).

▲

doomroot13 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, but also in combination with the not-borderline-and-actually insane growth in commits and load on the platform due to AI.

▲

sleepybrett an hour ago | parent [-]

this is often the argument that is trotted out, but i don't see any evidece of that.

	▲	JohnMakin an hour ago \| parent [-]
		It has been reported new user volume has nearly doubled, and commit volume 10x+ - that could certainly have an impact, but "Azure" and "scale" in my career are words that have never really gone together. Azure Cloud is the only 'hard no, will not interview' of any cloud provider that's listed on a job posting, and I've worked with just about all of them by now I think. Nothing even comes close to such a miserable experience. The thought of migrating something at the scale of github to azure gives me the cold sweats.

▲

mday404 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Agreed. It's not at all clear that GitHub as an independent company would be doing much better at dealing with this new world than GitHub within Microsoft is doing.

	▲	tyromaniac 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Would they have migrated to azure on such a timeframe?

▲

nvme0n1p1 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I'm not sure I would agree that the core reason in this case is "the acquisition"

Would data change your mind?

https://damrnelson.github.io/github-historical-uptime/

▲

cstrahan an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Playing devil's advocate: from the graph alone, it could just be that the status page became more accurate, so same amount of down time, but reported more now.

On the other hand, I don't remember things being this bad before the acquisition.

▲

nonethewiser an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That is quite stark.

Whats the deal with the colors? Red and yellow don’t strictly seem to mean higher/lower. Some yellow dots are lower than red.

	▲	zimpenfish an hour ago \| parent [-]
		As best I can tell, the red dots are "major outages", the yellow are "partial outages".

▲

an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

shimman 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

These are incredibly complex and massive systems, they do not fail instantly. The failures happen incrementally until they become insurmountable and the system collapse. Incompetence doesn't show its head immediately, it can take quite a while.

Either way, it's clear the acquisition has not helped github in any meaningful way. GitHub is owned by a multi trillion dollar transnational corporation. They have enough money, resources, and human labor to achieve whatever they want, but this is what they want and this is what they've achieved.