9 ms·
[Resolved] GitHub is returning 500 for all requests
- TedShiller 5y agoMicrosoft
- easton 5y agohttps://www.githubstatus.com/ https://www.githubstatus.com/ says degraded performance.
- willejs 5y agoI guarantee, as usual someone posts something along the lines of "This is why you should self-host <insert github alternative here>." Followed by comments like "Yeah, if you have time to maintain it"
- idrios 5y agoMeh, it's a good way to learn about github alternatives or hear anecdotes from people who have tried doing it.
- willejs 5y agoThat is a good point...
- hknapp 5y agoI recommend "git init --bare" and a $5 server on digital ocean
- rudian 5y agoClassic “I can make Dropbox with rsync” comment
- JasonFruit 5y agoBut if you can, maybe it's the right answer for you. Maybe the right answer for others is to learn to do it. For yet others, it's, "Use Dropbox." Why is, "This works for me, and might for you," not an acceptable answer?
- dogleash 5y agoEveryone likes to think they're the smart person laughing at the "Faster Horses" guy in that Henry Ford quote. And I don't think the moral of that quote means what most people think it means either. But anyway... I'm with you. I was looking for a HN comment I saw once so I could link to it. A guy was explaining how his response to "why do you use linux?" is "it gives me more control" but his response to "what would Linux let me do that windows doesn't?" and his response would be "nothing". If that person didn't already know, then there's no valid answer that actually applies to that person. But it's flashier to have a subscription product instead of a strong commons and self-sufficiency.
- rudian 5y agoBecause I believe it's bad advice. Web services are never "git and a $5 box", you must preserve them and keep them up to date. I can trust GitHub with my deploy secrets; Can you trust your $5 last-updated-in-2019 box? If you self-host, either you're a sysadmin or you must become one. Plus GitHub is not just git, so I hope you'll also like to you set up "GitHub Actions" on that $5 box.
- JasonFruit 5y agoAll you are saying is that there are people for whom self-hosting is right, and others for whom it is not right. We don't disagree on that.
- belter 5y agoAnd Dropbox for 8 years of its life was basically this: aws s3 sync source destination
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- nawgz 5y agoI unironically think GitLab is a better piece of software, but this type of situation arises way more regularly on self-hosted, so I fully agree with your point that this isn't really something to hold against GH
- carapace 5y agoIt's deeply ironic that git, a free distributed VCS, should be so completely pwned by a proprietary centralized service. (And beyond ironic that so many FOSS projects rely on it, especially after it was acquired by Microsoft. Blows my mind every time I think about it.)
- pdimitar 5y agoI see nothing mind-blowing about the fact that 99% of the developers on the ground are not willing to take on the challenge of inventing and bootstrapping a completely decentralized network. And that they need to work today and not after 10 years, when such an effort maybe finally takes off. Do you find these mind-blowing? As for self-hosting GitHub, yes, that's much more viable and I believe more of us should be doing it (although I personally plan to still have GitHub as a central source of truth and just backup all my repos to several servers under my control). But GitHub is also very socially entrenched and provides a real value-add in terms of good PR interface, Wiki, issues, discussions and whatnot.
- carapace 5y agoThe mind-blowing thing is, first, that FOSS projects use a proprietary system (for DVCS and for "good PR interface, Wiki, issues, discussions and whatnot") at all and second that they didn't bail en mass when it was acquired by MS, the traditional bogeyman of FOSS philosophy.
- pdimitar 5y agoPeople are busy. They need to get work done today. I'll migrate all my repos tomorrow -- and deprive myself of sleep if I have to -- if a solid GitHub competitor shows up. (And I'm not counting GitLab, it's worse in almost every way. And is very slow.) We're way past idealistic slogans. Be the change you want to see. Give example to the rest of us. Many will follow. In the meantime, I want my free time mostly free of computers.
- carapace 5y ago
- martimarkov 5y agoLondon, uk works
- ryneandal 5y agoLots of unicorn sightings here.
- siva7 5y agocan access from europe without problems
- chenzhekl 5y agowork from Japan, too.
- thibaut_barrere 5y agoit fails from France
- winter_squirrel 5y agoWorks fine for me.
- brycemice 5y agoGood US TX
- brycemice 5y agoAlso curl'd it...good response in USA West
- rvz 5y agoNo problems here. Everything is running fine in the UK and GitHub Actions seems to be up. As always have a failsafe backup system or CI whenever a real outage happens. Happy coding.
- mig39 5y agoWestern Canada checking in. Everything fine here.
- ranieuwe 5y agoSeems resolved: https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/m78sypncxsdw https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/m78sypncxsdw
- JakeStone 5y agoWell that could explain why there was a kerfluffle when checking my Advent of Code account earlier. It worked a few minutes later, so all good.
- tragictrash 5y agoI think this is a great example of why you should add a 2nd remote with some hooks to push to that second remote automatically.
- literallyaduck 5y agoA man with two watches never knows the time.
- kazinator 5y agoUnless he knows how to add two numbers and divide by two, and to generalize the arithmetic to hour-minute-second time.
- tragictrash 5y agoA man with two watches has a backup if one breaks.
- niffydroid 5y agoI had a few issues for a few minutes but then it was fine. Still better than bitbucket, they'd have issues for hours and no status update, at least github acknowledges issues straight away unlike bitbucket.
- NautilusWave 5y agoThe update log is exemplary. https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/m78sypncxsdw https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/m78sypncxsdw
- AtNightWeCode 5y agoWhy is there nothing better than Git? I mean... It is a centralized service that does not take any benefit from being a centralized service like other collaboration software. At the same time it is a bit decentralized but not really. The way Git works have an impact on how you build things. In private corporations. ACL is needed for compliance and so on and you end up with a lot repos. Then it propagates on to build pipelines and so on. There is no proper way to control secrets. There is no good built in way to separate users from service users like agents and so on. I wonder what the large IT companies use. Surely it can't be Git as is.
- Kelamir 5y agoI think you're confusing Git with GitHub.
- AtNightWeCode 5y agoNot at all, Github adds some more or less useless features to git without tackling any of the basic problems with git.
- gizmo686 5y agoChanging your remote is a one liner. If you can't be bothered to find the command, the config file is self explantory and easy to find. Any clone of the repository can function as a remote; and every developer has a full clone. If a clone is on a machine with an ssh server, it can be accessed through ssh. Doing so immidietly gives you all access control mechanisms present on said server. For simple setups, this is traditional user accounts with tradutional DAC, possibly with public key authentication uf SSH is so confifured. For more complex situations you can use arbitrary PAM modules. Otherwise any remote filesystem would work once you mount it. These are all concepts that any IT department fielding Linux systems will already need to deal with. As a developer, I have taken advantage of the distributed nature of git without a second thought. No access to the main repository? No problem, there is a clone on our build server, point your remote to that.
- AtNightWeCode 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- belter 5y ago@dang Why is this thread flagged?