At this point, GitHub outages feel closer to cloud provider outages than a SaaS blip. Curious how many people here still run self-hosted Git (GitLab / Gitea) vs fully outsourcing version control.
I was just looking into this today but it seems pricey. $29/user/month for basic features like codeowners and defining pr approval requirements. Going with Forgejo.
Wait, what? So you're on the hook for backups, upgrades, etc. and you have to pay them for the privilege? I thought GitLab was free as in speech and beer.
My previous two startups used GitLab successfully. The smaller startup used paid-tier hosted by gitlab.com. The bigger startup (with strategic cutting-edge IP, and multinational security sensitivity) used the expensive on-prem enterprise GitLab.
(The latter startup, I spent some principal engineer political capital to move us to GitLab, after our software team was crippled by the Microsoft Azure-branded thing that non-software people had purchased by default. It helped that GitLab had a testimonial from Nvidia, since we were also in the AI hardware space.)
If you prefer to use fully open source, or have $0 budget, there's also Forgejo (forked from Gitea). I'm using it for my current one-person side-startup, and it's mostly as good as GitLab for Git, issues, boards, and wiki. The "scoped" issue labels, which I use heavily, are standard in Foregejo, but paid-tier in GitLab. I haven't yet exercised the CI features.
Can someone in GitHub senior leadership please start paying attention and reprioritise towards actually delivering a product that's at least relatively reliable?
I moved my company over to GH enterprise last year (from AzDO) and I'm considering moving us away to another vendor altogether as a result of the constant partial outages. Things that used to "just work" now are slow in the UI, and GH actions fail to schedule in a reasonable timeframe way more than they ever used to. I enjoy GH copilot as much as the next person, but ultimately I came to GH because I needed a git forge, and I will leave GH if the git forge doesn't work.
I second this. GitHub used to be a fantastic product. Now it barely even works. Even basic functionality like the timeline updating when I push commits is unreliable. The other day I opened a PR diff (not even a particularly large one) and it took fully 15 seconds after the page visually finished loading -- on a $2,000 dev machine -- before any UI elements became clickable. This happened repeatedly.
It is fairly stunning to me that we've come to accept this level of non-functional software as normal.
We loved Github as a product when it needed to return or profit beyond "getting more users".
I feel this is just the natural trajectory for any VC-funded "service" that isn't actually profitable at the time you adopt it. Of course it's going to change for the worse to become profitable.
It seems most of the complaints are about the reliability and infrastructure - which is very much often a direct result of lack of investment and development resources.
And then many UI changes people have been complaining about are related to things like copilot being forcibly integrated - which is very much in the "Microsoft expect to gain a profit by encouraging it's use" camp.
It's pretty rare companies make a UI because they want a bad UI, it's normally a second order thing from other priorities - such as promoting other services or encouraging more ad impressions or similar.
The trend of "non-functional software" is happening everywhere. See the recent articles about Copilot in Notepad, failing to start because you aren't signed in with your Microsoft Account.
It was a complete accident. Nobody could have foreseen it. We are currently experiencing the sudden discovery that Microsoft is an evil corporation and maybe putting everything in the cloud wasn't the best move after all.
Let’s just say there are a couple of guys, who are up to no good. And they started making trouble in our neighborhood.
jokes aside it’s all because of hyper financial engineering. Every dollar every little cent must be maximized. Every process must be exploited and monetized, and there are a small group of people who are essentially driving all this all across the world in every industry.
Not quite everywhere. There's a common denominator for all of those: Microsoft.
Their business is buying good products and turning them into shit, while wringing every cent they can out of the business. Always has been.
They have a grace period of about 2-4 years after acquisition where interference is minimal. Then it ramps up. How long a product can survive once the interference begins largely depends on how good senior leadership at that product company is at resisting the interference. It's a hopeless battle, the best you can do is to lose slowly.
I for one am shocked--SHOCKED, I say!--to learn that anything bad could happen as a result of a) putting everything in "the cloud" and b) handing control over the entire world's source code to the likes of Microsoft.
Who could have POSSIBLY foreseen any kind of dire consequences?
This thread has complaints about software coming from the same supplier both degrading.
The person(s) who wanted this want Azure to get bigger and have prioritized Azure over Windows and Office, and their share price has been growing handsomely.
‘Microslop’, perhaps, but their other nickname has a $ in it for a reason.
Ya, it really was one of the most enjoyable web apps to use pre-MS. I'm sure there are lots of things that have contributed to this downfall. We certainly didn't need bullshit features like achievements.
Even just a year or two ago its web interface was way snappier. Now an issue with a non-trivial number of comments, or a PR with a diff of even just a few hundred or thousand lines of changes causes my browser to lock up.
So React rewrite did not help after all? Imagine, one of the largest software tool companies on Earth cannot reliably REbuild something in React. I lost count of the inconsistency issues React introduced.
Hey from the GitHub team. Outages like this are incredibly painful and we'll share a post-mortem once our investigation is complete.
It stings to have this happen as we're putting a lot of effort specifically into the core product, growing teams like Actions and increasing performance-focused initiatives on key areas like pull requests where we're already making solid progress[1]. Would love if you would reach out to me in DM around the perf issues you mentioned with diffs.
There's a lot of architecture, scaling, and performance work that we're prioritizing as we work to meet the growing code demand.
We're still investigating today's outage and we'll share a write up on our status page, and in our February Availability Report, with details on root cause and steps we're taking to mitigate moving forward.
Literally everyone who has used Github to look at a pull request in say the last year has experienced the ridiculous performance issues. It's a constant laughing point on HN at this point. There is no way you don't know this. Inviting to take this to a private channel, along with the rest of your comment really, is simply standard corporate PR.
So I work for a devtools vendor (Snyk) and 6 months ago I signed into Azure DevOps for the first time in my life
I couldn't believe it. I actually thought the product was broken. Just from a visual perspective it looked like a student project. And then I got to _using_ the damn thing
It's also completely unloved. Even MSFT Azure's own documentation regularly treats it as a second class citizen to GitHub. I have no idea why they don't just deprecate the service and officially feature freeze it.
Honestly that's the case with a lot of Azure services though.
Someone mentioned the boards but Pipelines/Actions are not 100% compliant.
My company uses Azure DevOps for a few things and any attempt to convert to GitHub was quickly abandoned after we spent 3 hours trying to get some Action working.
However, all usability quarks aside, I actually prefer these days since Microsoft doesn't really touch it and it just sits in corner doing what I need.
That's going to depend on each user's demands. The PR message limit is the biggest pain for me. I don't depend on the UI very often. I'm not trying to do any CI/CD nonsense. I just use it as a bog standard git repo. When used as that, it works just fine for me
My favourite restriction is the fact that colored text doesn't work in dark mode. Why? Because whatever intern they had implement dark mode didn't understand how CSS works, and just slapped !important on all the style changes that make dark mode dark, and thus overwrite the color data.
I ended up writing a browser extension for my team to fix it, because the boss loved to indicate stuff with red/green text.
> Can someone in GitHub senior leadership please start paying attention and reprioritise towards actually delivering a product that's at least relatively reliable?
They claim that is what they are doing right now. [1]
Zero indication that migrating to azure will improve stability over the colos they are in now. The outages aren’t caused by the datacenter, whatever MS execs say.
> Can someone in GitHub senior leadership please start paying attention and reprioritise towards actually delivering a product that's at least relatively reliable?
It's Microsoft. A reliable product is not a reasonable expectation.
You might as well self-host at this point as that is far more reliable than depending on GitHub.
Additionally, there is no CEO of GitHub this time that is going to save us here.
So as I said many years ago [0] in the long term, a better way is to self host or use alternatives such as Codeberg or GitLab which at least you can self host your own.
Github used to publish some pretty interesting postmortems. Maybe they still do. IIRC that they were struggling with scaling their SQL db and were starting to hit the limits. It's a tough position to be in because you have to either to a massive migration to a data layer with much different semantics, or you have to keep desperately squeezing performance and skirting on the edge of outages with a DB that wasn't really meant to handle what you're doing with it now.
The OpenAI blog post on "scaling" Postgres to their current scale has much the same flavor, although I think they're doing it better than Github appears to be doing.
Not going to happen. This is terminal decline. Next step is to kill off free repos, and then they'll start ratcheting up the price to the point that they have one small dedicated engineering team supporting each customer they have. They will have exactly one customer. At some point they'll end up owned by Broadcom, OpenText, Rocket, or Progress.
Killing off free repos is not going to happen. That would be a suicide move on the level of the Digg redesign, or Tumblr's porn ban.
It kind of would be good for everyone if they did do it though. Need to get rid of this monopoly, and maybe people will discover that there are alternatives with actually good workflows out there.
The ultimate irony is that Linus Thorvalds designed git with the Linux kernel codebase in mind to work without any form of infrastructure centralisation. No repo trumps any other.
Surely some of your crazy kids can rummage up a CI pipeline on their laptop? 8)
Anyway, I only use GH as something to sync interesting stuff from, so it doesn't get lost.
I wonder if GitHub is feeling the crush of fully automated development workflows? Must be a crazy number of commits now to personal repos that will never convert to paid orgs.
IME this all started after MSFT acquired GitHub but well before vibe coding took the world by storm.
ETA: Tangentially, private repos became free under Microsoft ownership in 2019. If they hadn't done that, they could've extracted $4 per month from every vibe coder forever(!)
I simply do not believe that all of these people can and want to setup a CI. Some maybe, but even after the agent will recommend it only a fraction of people would actually do it. Why would they?
An anecdote: On one project, I use a skill + custom cli to assist getting PRs through a sometimes long and winding CI process. `/babysit-pr`
This includes regular checks on CI checks using `gh`. My skill / cli are broken right now:
`gh pr checks 8174 --repo [repo] 2>&1)`
Error: Exit code 1
Non-200 OK status code: 429 Too Many Requests
Body:
{
"message": "This endpoint is temporarily being throttled. Please try again later. For more on scraping GitHub and how it may affect your rights, please review our Terms of Service (https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service)",
"documentation_url": "https://docs.github.com/graphql/using-the-rest-api/rate-limits-for-the-rest-api",
"status": "429"
}
I was wondering about that the other day, the sheer amount of code, repos, and commits being generated now with AI. And probably more large datasets as well.
I consider moving away from Github, but I need a solid CI solution, and ideally a container registry as well. Would totally pay for a solution that just works. Any good recommendations?
Long time GitLab fan myself. The platform itself is quite solid, and GitLab CI is extremely straightforward but allows for a lot of complexity if you need it. They have registries as well, though admittedly the permission stuff around them is a bit wonky. But it definitely works and integrates nicely when you use everything all in one!
Should our repos be responsible for CI in the first place? Seems like we keep losing the idea of simple tools to do specific jobs well (unix-like) and keep growing tools to be larger while attempting to do more things much less well (microsoft-like).
I think most large platforms eventually split the tools out because you indeed can get MUCH better CI/CD, ticket management, documentation, etc from dedicated platforms for each. However when you're just starting out the cognitive overhead and cost of signing up and connecting multiple services is a lot higher than using all the tools bundled (initially for free) with your repo.
We can run a Forgejo instance for you with Firecracker VM runners on bare metal. We can also support it and provide an SLA. We're running it internally and it is very solid. We're running the runners on bare metal, with a whole lot of large CI/CD jobs (mostly Rust compilation).
The down side is that the starting price is kinda high, so the math probably only works out if you also have a number of other workloads to run on the same cluster. Or if you need to run a really huge Forgejo server!
I suspect my comment history will provide the best details and overview of what we do. We'll be offering the Firecracker runner back to the Forgejo community very soon in any case.
You should reach the same conclusion by trying to use it for this purpose, but also indeed for any purpose at all. Incidents that make you unable to deploy making all your CD efforts pointless are only the cherry on top.
Someone needs to make an mcp server for my claude so it can check if services are down, it goes stir crazy when github is down and adds heaps of work around code =D
This is the predictable outcome of subordinating the GitHub product to the overarching "AI must be part of everything whether it makes sense or not" mandate coming down from the top. It was only a year ago that GitHub was moved under the "CoreAI" group at Microsoft, and there's been plenty of stories of massive cost-cutting and forcing teams to focus on AI workflows instead of their actual product priorities. To the extent they are drinking their own Kool-Aid, this sort of ops failure is also an entirely predictable outcome of too much reliance on LLM-generated code and workflows rather than human expertise, something we see happening at an alarming scale in a number of public MS repos.
Hopefully it will get bad enough fast enough that they'll recognize they need to drastically change how they are operating. But I fear we're just witnessing a slow slide into complacency and settling for being a substandard product with monopoly-power name recognition.
It would be interesting to have a graph showing AI adoption in coding against the number of weekly outages across different companies. I am sure they are quite correlated.
Remember the other day when a bunch of yous were making fun of zig moving away from GitHub?
Now suddenly you all say this is not the future you wanted.
Everyday you opt in to get wrecked by Microsoft.
You all do realize you all could, for a change, learn something and never again touch anything Microsoft related?
> You all do realize you all could, for a change, learn something and never again touch anything Microsoft related?
I learned that lesson in the 90s and became an "ABM" (Anything But Microsoft).
People sadly shall never learn: Windows 12 is going to come out and shall suck more than any previous version of Windows except Windows 11, so they'll see it as progress. Then Windows 13 is going to be an abysmal piece of crap and people shall hang to their Windows 12, wondering how it's possible that Microsoft came out with a bad OS.
There are still people explaining, today, that Microsoft ain't all bad because Windows XP was good (for some definition of good). Windows XP came out in late 2001.
I still say that mixing CI/CD with code/version control hosting is a mistake.
At it's absolute best, everything just works silently, and you now have vendor lock-in with whichever proprietary system you chose.
Switching git hosting providers should be as easy as changing your remotes and pushing. Though now a days that requires finding solutions for the MR/PR process, and the wiki, and all the extra things your team might have grown to rely on. As always, the bundle is a trap.
I'm starting to wonder if people doing what were previously unconventional workflows (which may not be performance optimized) are affecting things.
For example, today, I had claude basically prune all merged branches from a repo that's had 8 years of commits in it. It found and deleted 420 branches that were merged but not deleted.
Deleting 420 branches at once is probably the kind of long tail workflow that was not worth optimizing in the past, right? But I'm sure devs are doing this sort of housekeeping often now, whereas in the past, we just never would've made the time to do so.
I moved everything on github to a self hosted foregjo instanse some days ago. I really did not do anything. Created some tokens so that CC could access github and forgejo and my dns API. Self hosting is so much simpler and easier with AI. Expect more people to self host small to medium stuff.
vampiregrey | 2 hours ago
betaby | 2 hours ago
sam_lowry_ | 2 hours ago
monkaiju | 2 hours ago
zhouzhao | 2 hours ago
When I worked at the univerity we used Gitea.
Every job outside of univerity I had used Gitlab self hosted. While I don't like the UI or any aspect of Gitlab a lot, it gets the job done.
zer00eyz | 2 hours ago
terminalbraid | 2 hours ago
DeepYogurt | 2 hours ago
edverma2 | 2 hours ago
1f60c | 2 hours ago
cyberax | an hour ago
But that $30 per month per user is also the cost for their cloud-hosted version. It also includes quite a bit of CI/CD runtime.
vampiregrey | 2 hours ago
blibble | 2 hours ago
neilv | 2 hours ago
My previous two startups used GitLab successfully. The smaller startup used paid-tier hosted by gitlab.com. The bigger startup (with strategic cutting-edge IP, and multinational security sensitivity) used the expensive on-prem enterprise GitLab.
(The latter startup, I spent some principal engineer political capital to move us to GitLab, after our software team was crippled by the Microsoft Azure-branded thing that non-software people had purchased by default. It helped that GitLab had a testimonial from Nvidia, since we were also in the AI hardware space.)
If you prefer to use fully open source, or have $0 budget, there's also Forgejo (forked from Gitea). I'm using it for my current one-person side-startup, and it's mostly as good as GitLab for Git, issues, boards, and wiki. The "scoped" issue labels, which I use heavily, are standard in Foregejo, but paid-tier in GitLab. I haven't yet exercised the CI features.
arthur-st | 2 hours ago
noodlesUK | 2 hours ago
I moved my company over to GH enterprise last year (from AzDO) and I'm considering moving us away to another vendor altogether as a result of the constant partial outages. Things that used to "just work" now are slow in the UI, and GH actions fail to schedule in a reasonable timeframe way more than they ever used to. I enjoy GH copilot as much as the next person, but ultimately I came to GH because I needed a git forge, and I will leave GH if the git forge doesn't work.
kasey_junk | 2 hours ago
So not at all?
1f60c | 2 hours ago
nfg | 52 minutes ago
Disclaimer: I work in Microsoft (albeit in a quite disconnected part of it, nothing to do with GitHub or Copilot).
sobjornstad | 2 hours ago
It is fairly stunning to me that we've come to accept this level of non-functional software as normal.
kimixa | 2 hours ago
I feel this is just the natural trajectory for any VC-funded "service" that isn't actually profitable at the time you adopt it. Of course it's going to change for the worse to become profitable.
tibbar | 2 hours ago
notpushkin | 2 hours ago
kimixa | 22 minutes ago
And then many UI changes people have been complaining about are related to things like copilot being forcibly integrated - which is very much in the "Microsoft expect to gain a profit by encouraging it's use" camp.
It's pretty rare companies make a UI because they want a bad UI, it's normally a second order thing from other priorities - such as promoting other services or encouraging more ad impressions or similar.
HoldOnAMinute | 2 hours ago
We are in a future that nobody wanted.
dylan604 | 2 hours ago
Nor deserved.
heliumtera | an hour ago
its_magic | an hour ago
timacles | 57 minutes ago
jokes aside it’s all because of hyper financial engineering. Every dollar every little cent must be maximized. Every process must be exploited and monetized, and there are a small group of people who are essentially driving all this all across the world in every industry.
michaelcampbell | 2 hours ago
habitable5 | 2 hours ago
some people wanted this future and put in untold amount of money to make it happen. Hint: one of them is a rabid Tolkien fan.
cyanydeez | 2 hours ago
b00ty4breakfast | 54 minutes ago
amarant | 2 hours ago
Their business is buying good products and turning them into shit, while wringing every cent they can out of the business. Always has been.
They have a grace period of about 2-4 years after acquisition where interference is minimal. Then it ramps up. How long a product can survive once the interference begins largely depends on how good senior leadership at that product company is at resisting the interference. It's a hopeless battle, the best you can do is to lose slowly.
Andrex | an hour ago
See also their moves in the gaming industry.
its_magic | an hour ago
Who could have POSSIBLY foreseen any kind of dire consequences?
bonesss | 2 hours ago
The person(s) who wanted this want Azure to get bigger and have prioritized Azure over Windows and Office, and their share price has been growing handsomely.
‘Microslop’, perhaps, but their other nickname has a $ in it for a reason.
its_magic | an hour ago
sodapopcan | 2 hours ago
noodlesUK | 2 hours ago
sodapopcan | 2 hours ago
samgranieri | 2 hours ago
They need to start rolling back some of their most recent changes.
I mean, if they want people to start moving to self hosted GitLab, this is gonna get that ball rolling.
throw20251220 | 55 minutes ago
dev_l1x_be | an hour ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33576722
catigula | an hour ago
dev_l1x_be | 15 minutes ago
blibble | an hour ago
it's almost as if Microsoft bought it, isn't it?
matthewisabel | 18 minutes ago
It stings to have this happen as we're putting a lot of effort specifically into the core product, growing teams like Actions and increasing performance-focused initiatives on key areas like pull requests where we're already making solid progress[1]. Would love if you would reach out to me in DM around the perf issues you mentioned with diffs.
There's a lot of architecture, scaling, and performance work that we're prioritizing as we work to meet the growing code demand.
We're still investigating today's outage and we'll share a write up on our status page, and in our February Availability Report, with details on root cause and steps we're taking to mitigate moving forward.
[1] https://x.com/matthewisabel/status/2019811220598280410
Etheryte | 4 minutes ago
jbreckmckye | 2 hours ago
My "favourite" restriction that an Azure DevOps PR description is limited to a pathetic 4000 characters.
noodlesUK | 2 hours ago
jbreckmckye | 2 hours ago
I couldn't believe it. I actually thought the product was broken. Just from a visual perspective it looked like a student project. And then I got to _using_ the damn thing
noodlesUK | 2 hours ago
Honestly that's the case with a lot of Azure services though.
easton | 2 hours ago
stackskipton | 10 minutes ago
My company uses Azure DevOps for a few things and any attempt to convert to GitHub was quickly abandoned after we spent 3 hours trying to get some Action working.
However, all usability quarks aside, I actually prefer these days since Microsoft doesn't really touch it and it just sits in corner doing what I need.
dylan604 | 2 hours ago
jbreckmckye | 2 hours ago
dylan604 | an hour ago
tibbar | 2 hours ago
semiquaver | 2 hours ago
OkayPhysicist | 45 minutes ago
I ended up writing a browser extension for my team to fix it, because the boss loved to indicate stuff with red/green text.
wnevets | 2 hours ago
They claim that is what they are doing right now. [1]
[1] https://thenewstack.io/github-will-prioritize-migrating-to-a...
skywhopper | 2 hours ago
semiquaver | 2 hours ago
Andrex | an hour ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46861842
amluto | 2 hours ago
co_king_3 | 2 hours ago
It's Microsoft. A reliable product is not a reasonable expectation.
rvz | 2 hours ago
Additionally, there is no CEO of GitHub this time that is going to save us here.
So as I said many years ago [0] in the long term, a better way is to self host or use alternatives such as Codeberg or GitLab which at least you can self host your own.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22867803
tibbar | 2 hours ago
bigbuppo | an hour ago
tazjin | 30 minutes ago
It kind of would be good for everyone if they did do it though. Need to get rid of this monopoly, and maybe people will discover that there are alternatives with actually good workflows out there.
bigbuppo | 13 minutes ago
markus_zhang | an hour ago
gerdesj | 2 minutes ago
Surely some of your crazy kids can rummage up a CI pipeline on their laptop? 8)
Anyway, I only use GH as something to sync interesting stuff from, so it doesn't get lost.
alexellisuk | 2 hours ago
Anyone else having issues? It is blocking any kind of release
kevmo314 | 2 hours ago
1f60c | 2 hours ago
ETA: Tangentially, private repos became free under Microsoft ownership in 2019. If they hadn't done that, they could've extracted $4 per month from every vibe coder forever(!)
dizhn | 18 minutes ago
reactordev | 2 hours ago
jbreckmckye | 2 hours ago
reactordev | 2 hours ago
jbreckmckye | 2 hours ago
reactordev | an hour ago
This is all grapevine but yeah, you read that right.
9cb14c1ec0 | an hour ago
neuropacabra | 44 minutes ago
bredren | an hour ago
This includes regular checks on CI checks using `gh`. My skill / cli are broken right now:
`gh pr checks 8174 --repo [repo] 2>&1)`
chasd00 | an hour ago
Btw, someone prompt Claude code “make an equivalent to GitHub.com and deploy it wherever you think is best. No questions.”
winddude | 2 hours ago
dwoldrich | 45 minutes ago
falloutx | 2 hours ago
Kovah | 2 hours ago
swamp-agr | 2 hours ago
dysoco | 2 hours ago
joeskyyy | 2 hours ago
dylan604 | 2 hours ago
tibbar | 2 hours ago
tibbar | 2 hours ago
cyanydeez | 2 hours ago
IshKebab | 2 hours ago
* Mandatory code reviews
* Merge queue (merge train)
If you don't need those it's good.
Also it's written in Ruby so if you think you'll ever want to understand or modify the code then look elsewhere (probably Forgejo).
adamcharnock | 2 hours ago
The down side is that the starting price is kinda high, so the math probably only works out if you also have a number of other workloads to run on the same cluster. Or if you need to run a really huge Forgejo server!
I suspect my comment history will provide the best details and overview of what we do. We'll be offering the Firecracker runner back to the Forgejo community very soon in any case.
https://lithus.eu
hhh | an hour ago
import | an hour ago
bstsb | 2 hours ago
(although admittedly less load and redundancy)
chilipepperhott | 2 hours ago
nhuser2221 | 2 hours ago
an0malous | 2 hours ago
jraph | 2 hours ago
Do you allow me to run the following command?
devy | 2 hours ago
https://thenewstack.io/github-will-prioritize-migrating-to-a...
And coincidentally, an early CircleCI engineer wrote an article about GitHub Action (TLDR: don't use GitHub Action for CI/CD!)
https://www.iankduncan.com/engineering/2026-02-05-github-act...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46908491
baq | an hour ago
You should reach the same conclusion by trying to use it for this purpose, but also indeed for any purpose at all. Incidents that make you unable to deploy making all your CD efforts pointless are only the cherry on top.
WhyNotHugo | 2 hours ago
It's just "yet another day of business as usual" as this point.
thomasfromcdnjs | 2 hours ago
varispeed | 2 hours ago
rvz | 2 hours ago
A prophecy that was predicted half a decade ago [0] which is now more important then as it is now today.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22867803
skywhopper | 2 hours ago
Hopefully it will get bad enough fast enough that they'll recognize they need to drastically change how they are operating. But I fear we're just witnessing a slow slide into complacency and settling for being a substandard product with monopoly-power name recognition.
musha68k | 2 hours ago
ariedro | 2 hours ago
the_real_cher | an hour ago
ChrisArchitect | 2 hours ago
esafak | an hour ago
ChrisArchitect | 46 minutes ago
rpns | an hour ago
The history for today is a bit of a mess really: https://www.githubstatus.com/history
ChrisArchitect | 47 minutes ago
heliumtera | an hour ago
Everyday you opt in to get wrecked by Microsoft.
You all do realize you all could, for a change, learn something and never again touch anything Microsoft related?
Fool me once...
TacticalCoder | 20 minutes ago
I learned that lesson in the 90s and became an "ABM" (Anything But Microsoft).
People sadly shall never learn: Windows 12 is going to come out and shall suck more than any previous version of Windows except Windows 11, so they'll see it as progress. Then Windows 13 is going to be an abysmal piece of crap and people shall hang to their Windows 12, wondering how it's possible that Microsoft came out with a bad OS.
There are still people explaining, today, that Microsoft ain't all bad because Windows XP was good (for some definition of good). Windows XP came out in late 2001.
Stockholm syndrome and all that.
elzbardico | an hour ago
neuropacabra | 43 minutes ago
dec0dedab0de | an hour ago
At it's absolute best, everything just works silently, and you now have vendor lock-in with whichever proprietary system you chose.
Switching git hosting providers should be as easy as changing your remotes and pushing. Though now a days that requires finding solutions for the MR/PR process, and the wiki, and all the extra things your team might have grown to rely on. As always, the bundle is a trap.
bamboozled | 58 minutes ago
atonse | an hour ago
For example, today, I had claude basically prune all merged branches from a repo that's had 8 years of commits in it. It found and deleted 420 branches that were merged but not deleted.
Deleting 420 branches at once is probably the kind of long tail workflow that was not worth optimizing in the past, right? But I'm sure devs are doing this sort of housekeeping often now, whereas in the past, we just never would've made the time to do so.
sisve | 32 minutes ago
danhon | 31 minutes ago
[0]: https://www.theverge.com/tech/796119/microsoft-github-azure-...