[hypeatei]

I think it's easy to pile-on and say "GitHub is down again! Should've self hosted lol!".

When, in reality, it's one service having issues and not the whole site. These incidents also seem to be resolved quickly.

Downtime is not the end of the world.

[rvz]

Judging from last month [0] and my own comment chain, [1] it is not so good and it is like as if it is guaranteed to go down each month.

> Downtime is not the end of the world.

What if you needed to push that critical change and it is down and all you could do is wait?

What if you hosted your website on GitHub Pages? Maybe you use GitHub Actions (I assume most do here and are paying for it for their teams). Surely people use it for pull requests and issue management as well as for the webhooks and basic git operations.

There are those that went 'all in' on GitHub and use everything on it and are now crying that it is unreliable. This is where going 'all in' makes no sense. (Especially without a backup/self-hosted system somewhere.) Or centralizing everything on it as predicted years ago. [2]

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30841070

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30790842

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22867803

[iampims]

You always need a break glass solution for these kind of events, SaaS or self-hosted, something will break at an inopportune time and you need to be able to move forward.

[boesboes]

Until you your self have an issue you cannot fix because github is 'having issues' so you cannot build & deploy. I'm not saying self-host everything, even though I prefer it for many things, but do make sure you have redudancy in these processes. When Github has issues, out company stops. That is not an acceptable dependency imo

> Downtime is not the end of the world.

Tell that to our customers & support...

[abluecloud]

no but in a team of thousands of developers it costs a hell of a lot of money in lost productivity.