3 ms·

I'm glad you are optimistic. GitHub will need employees with that attitude if they're going to pull out of their current trajectory. To be clear- from a user p

I'm glad you are optimistic. GitHub will need employees with that attitude if they're going to pull out of their current trajectory. To be clear- from a user perspective, "improving GitHub" means "restoring reliability to what it was 6 years ago". There's no killer feature that makes people stop leaving, if my PRs don't lead every third day and actions never work.

slowmovintarget 6mo ago
Security: No leaking PII, no compromised build pipelines. Uptime: 4 9s minimum for paying customers for the core service (not necessarily the social features, but pull requests have to work).
- pcdevils 6mo ago
  More AI it is
grogenaut 6mo ago
I may have my timelines wrong but I don't remember github being rock solid 5 years ago. I remember multiple outages keeping us from pulling code for go packages that were not using an enterprise dependency cache and killing multiple days of work a year for those systems. It's what I used as a forcing function to move people TO an enterprise dependency cache, and to find the few scofflaws running work code off of github.com versus enterprise.
- margalabargala 6mo ago
  You're right. I was misremembering this graph: https://damrnelson.github.io/github-historical-uptime/ https://damrnelson.github.io/github-historical-uptime/
  - tlunch 6mo ago
    That is a pretty wild graph
    - throwaway2037 6mo ago
      Can you explain more of what you mean by "wild" here? I never worked on any SaaS that had such high uptime. It seems pretty good to me. In 10 years, it was always better than 99.5% uptime. That seems impressive to me for a huge, complex SaaS like GitHub.
      - philipallstar 6mo ago
        I might be wrong, but isn't half a percent almost 2 days of downtime in a year?
        someguyiguess 6mo ago
        Or 7 minutes a day.
    - criley2 6mo ago
      Feels like a pretty wildly misleading graph. What do they say about lies, damned lies and statistics? This graph is literally designed to abuse correlation =/= causation by attaching the arbitrary label "microsoft acquires github" so that the reader will apply causation to the uptime. Now let's overlay ontop of the uptime graph a few lines of: # of monthly active users, # of monthly commits, size of PRs, action minutes per PR (whatever demonstrates scaling) Something tells me that the uptime issues follow scale more than they do ownership... but that's not the narrative that this chart was designed for...
      - aprentic 6mo ago
        The nice thing about statistics and math is that you don't need to stop at a feeling. If doubt their math, do it yourself.
        deleted 6mo ago
  - grogenaut 6mo ago
    Actually to me the answer is Ms made them get more accurate in their graph. It was definitely not Rick solid in 2015-2018 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14452011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14452011 https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/31/github-goes-down-and-takes-developer-productivity-with-it/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/31/github-goes-down-and-takes...
  - nathan11 6mo ago
    Another line on that graph should probably be "January 7, 2019: GitHub offers unlimited free private repos". I can't imagine that helps with service stability.

slowmovintarget 6mo ago

Security: No leaking PII, no compromised build pipelines. Uptime: 4 9s minimum for paying customers for the core service (not necessarily the social features, but pull requests have to work).

pcdevils 6mo ago
More AI it is

grogenaut 6mo ago

I may have my timelines wrong but I don't remember github being rock solid 5 years ago. I remember multiple outages keeping us from pulling code for go packages that were not using an enterprise dependency cache and killing multiple days of work a year for those systems. It's what I used as a forcing function to move people TO an enterprise dependency cache, and to find the few scofflaws running work code off of github.com versus enterprise.

margalabargala 6mo ago
You're right. I was misremembering this graph: https://damrnelson.github.io/github-historical-uptime/ https://damrnelson.github.io/github-historical-uptime/
- tlunch 6mo ago
  That is a pretty wild graph
  - throwaway2037 6mo ago
    Can you explain more of what you mean by "wild" here? I never worked on any SaaS that had such high uptime. It seems pretty good to me. In 10 years, it was always better than 99.5% uptime. That seems impressive to me for a huge, complex SaaS like GitHub.
    - philipallstar 6mo ago
      I might be wrong, but isn't half a percent almost 2 days of downtime in a year?
      - someguyiguess 6mo ago
        Or 7 minutes a day.
  - criley2 6mo ago
    Feels like a pretty wildly misleading graph. What do they say about lies, damned lies and statistics? This graph is literally designed to abuse correlation =/= causation by attaching the arbitrary label "microsoft acquires github" so that the reader will apply causation to the uptime. Now let's overlay ontop of the uptime graph a few lines of: # of monthly active users, # of monthly commits, size of PRs, action minutes per PR (whatever demonstrates scaling) Something tells me that the uptime issues follow scale more than they do ownership... but that's not the narrative that this chart was designed for...
    - aprentic 6mo ago
      The nice thing about statistics and math is that you don't need to stop at a feeling. If doubt their math, do it yourself.
      - deleted 6mo ago
- grogenaut 6mo ago
  Actually to me the answer is Ms made them get more accurate in their graph. It was definitely not Rick solid in 2015-2018 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14452011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14452011 https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/31/github-goes-down-and-takes-developer-productivity-with-it/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/31/github-goes-down-and-takes...
- nathan11 6mo ago
  Another line on that graph should probably be "January 7, 2019: GitHub offers unlimited free private repos". I can't imagine that helps with service stability.