3 ms·
Really? No, comparing the uptime of two services (actually, one service and one open source self-hosted service) it's relevant to consider _why_ one would have
by chockchocschoir 5y ago
Really? No, comparing the uptime of two services (actually, one service and one open source self-hosted service) it's relevant to consider _why_ one would have more downtime than another, even if they don't use those features. Even if the parent posters workflow doesn't use the new/deprecated features, they will still be affected by the downtime GitHub have monthly.
- Nextgrid 5y agoI don't think anyone is overlooking the reasons why one might have more downtime than the other. The problem is that ultimately the downtime itself matters and not the reason, and if you don't need any of the features that GitHub offers, then the self-hosted route is a better option.
- falcolas 5y ago> if you don't need any of the features that GitHub offers In particular, all of the new features whose addition causes instability.
- Nextgrid 5y agoI think it's the development process (as in moving things around and potentially introducing bugs) than the new features per-se.
- falcolas 5y agoWith all due respect to the developers, it would not speak well for GitHub if they can't maintain stability while refactoring. There's a lot of testing processes and CI processes explicitly around making those actions safe. New features breaking is a lot more understandable - even expected - than regressions and refactoring failures.