HN

Comments (131)

• Menu

  bearjaws
  People want to dunk on GitHub, but honestly going from 50M of <thing> per day to 2B <thing> per day will break pretty much any system anyone has ever built here. Even if it was over the span of ~8 months, many things will fall over and then as you patch those the next domino will fall.I feel bad for the team, but will be great growth opportunities for all.
• Menu

  orsenthil
  Yeah, only yesterday I let claude build and deploy me a end to end project that will flicker my lifx light-bulb when commits to any open source project lands. In the morning I saw it stopped around 11 pm PST yesterday. I was wondering why and I was wondering, how easy it is do a complete working project like this in minutes and what is stopping people to do 100s of such project per day. Github wasn't built for this scenario.
• Menu

  mglvsky
  Why they didn't prompt something like "please make whole system more reliable, don't make mistakes"?
• Menu

  zanderwohl
  I have not understood, and still do not understand, why everyone locks themselves into github's CI/CD pipeline. It's not hard to set up checks that run on a generic docker setup. I have a home server that I use for all my builds and checks, with a github actions config to run manually if I can't VPN into my home network.Besides being more reliable, it's just faster to run on a machine you control.
• Menu

  loveparade
  I think it would be more efficient to post on HN when there is a day without GitHub issues.
• throwitaway222
  Perhaps they need to make actions free and actions plus. Actions free does everything the current product does, but has deferred updates in the UI. And possibly have actions free/plus push updates to your own agentic infrastructure instead. Just configure a URL and all your actions updates go there
• Menu

  fschuett
  I disabled CI on my part and need to make a separate "ci run" comment to start the CI. I found it increasingly annoying to have CI run "on every commit / push" because I only really need it to be green on the prod-release, not on every commit.
• kqgnkqgn
  Given that Github seems to persistently have these scaling challenges, IMO either one of these two things must be true: 1) either they are less competent at running large scale infra vs other large tech companies 2) or git itself adds unique challenges, that make this more difficult to scaleI think 2) is much more likely than 1).So why stick with git? Is it feasible to make a new VCS that scales better if you start from scratch?Obviously getting adoption of something else would be a challenge. But Github has enough market-share that they could plausibly pull this off. Particularly using costs or reliability to incentivize migration.(Not saying that this would necessarily be good for the community in general but I think good for Github.)
• jack_sunsetless
  My company moved from Azure DevOps to GitHub because of the AI features. ADO was reliable and easy to use, and GitHub has been neither for us. Now Microsoft is adding AI to ADO too, so the main reason for the move is going away :) ADO is much better in my opinion
• igsomething
  How long until they increase their plans' pricing and reduce the free Actions minutes to drive bad users away? I would rather have 500 minutes/month of reliable GHA than this.
• Menu

  bob1029
  I was just debating if I was going to side step actions altogether for a new build and deployment flow.I'm at a point where I'm going to set two permanent branches on the remote, one pertaining to each environment. The targets will poll for the latest commit at their configured branch and perform a rebuild internally if a change is detected. Assuming git core ops are still alive, it is possible to keep this running. It's also easy to migrate to a different vendor.
• mmnfrdmcx
  For a small team I setup Forgejo with self hosted CI on Framework desktop. Connect via Tailscale. Runs amazingly well, feels good to have independence from this
• baxtr
  Whose agents have escaped this time?
• Menu

  colek42
  Using CI as a gate does not scale. We really think you need to push that testing to the local system and use something like pushgate.dev to validate that the agents actually ran the tests and generated provenance.
• Menu

  VorpalWay
  Is github built out of a house of cards? How does this stuff keep happening?
• htrp
  just make actions a thing you have to self host and release an action plugin with github desktop
• acedTrex
  Thankfully programming is solved so these are non issues.
• Menu

  username_my1
  I'm genuinely amazed by anyone still using github CI for anything serious.
• Menu

  richwater
  At this point just start charging and get rid of free repos. It's obviously killing the service.
• Menu

  esher
  Oh again?
• Menu

  rvz
  Last time there was an incident like this was 4 days ago.There are no more excuses to self host. You can now ask Claude to do it for you, given that “coding is solved”.Or even vibe code your own GitHub at this point.
• VCFundedGenYer
  At this point they should post status alerts when the service is up, rather than down.
• anon
  undefined
• provenboard
  doesnt surprise me
• Menu

  sergiotapia
  There must a top 0.05% of users that account for the vast majority of this bs. GitHub should charge them and serve the majority.
• Menu

  kevmo
  Microsoft should have never been allowed to buy github. A functioning government would have prevented the acquisition.The entire US economy is tottering due to a lack of anti-trust enforcement.Even The Economist, an oligarch-friendly magazine, has been hitting the alarm bell on this for over a decade: "America needs a giant dose of competition" https://www.economist.com/briefing/2016/03/26/too-much-of-a-...
• kennysve
  [dead]
• latencyharbor
  [flagged]
• hopie
  [flagged]
• evann-dev
  [flagged]