[FuzzyDunlop]

Nothing against Github but this probably highlights the real benefit of DVCS: setting up multiple remotes for your repo. Manage it probably and when one service goes down, fall back to Bitbucket or another service.

It would limit the potential damage these attacks could cause, given the reliance dev teams have on pushing code to a central repo. Taking down a site like Github has a fairly clear effect on the productivity of a lot of their users.

[nivloc]

Multiple remotes are easy. Three lines in the config to push to Github and Bitbucket. Which is great if you rely on either service. It's everything else - hooks, wiki, issues, etc. - that get overlooked.

[bluesaunders]

It'd be glorious if one service (say GitHub) had multiple remote links that dynamically switched for you when service faced an outage.

[dasil003]

If it's one service though there is still always a single point of failure outside of your control. If you want true redundancy you need to use multiple versions with no interconnections and develop your own solution to mitigate partial failure, of course your own solution is also a single point of failure, but at least it's under your control.

That said, Github has never been down long enough for me to justify a fallback procedure and policy for my team. The complexity of the solution outweighs the benefit. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

[goldfeld]

There will be no crossing if the bridge is down, though.

[dasil003]

Of course there will be. We are talking about git. Everyone has a full copy of the repository. Github's data center gets hit by a meteor tomorrow and it's a minor setback, nothing more.