3 ms·
> I don't need two CI/CD pipelines. Maybe my question was unclear, but I was not asking why are no not using two services, I was asking why are you not using a
by jaekash 6y ago
> I don't need two CI/CD pipelines.
Maybe my question was unclear, but I was not asking why are no not using two services, I was asking why are you not using an alternative, and I meant instead of GitHub, not in addition to GitHub.
> If this is the last of it and Microsoft makes a commitment to not break things, I'll likely stay as the effort to move is nonzero.
Commitment without liability is not a commitment. It is just empty words. And I don't see Microsoft making any commitments with liability on their part for a free service.
- echelon 6y ago> why are no not using two services Simplicity. Microsoft has a marketplace where they bundle a bunch of services together where developers already are. I didn't have to go elsewhere to look. It's a real competitive advantage they're building. That said, I may begin to look elsewhere. > And I don't see Microsoft making any commitments with liability on their part for a free service It's not a free service. I pay roughly $50/mo for the features I use. > And I don't see Microsoft making any commitments with liability on their part for a free service. I imagine they take their SLAs very seriously. Especially in light of this string of outages. If they don't, they're going to lose customers and good will.
- jaekash 6y ago> I imagine they take their SLAs very seriously. What are the liabilities on them for failing to meet their SLA? Taking thing seriously is not a liability. Specifically in this case, what are their liability to you?