Tell HN: GitHub is down again
Yet somehow https://www.githubstatus.com is ALL GREEN! smh
Note you also need to build differently if you go this route: `-mod=vendor`, otherwise the directory will be ignored in modern Go.
As for building with a flag: true, but very minor, as it's rare to execute 'go build' directly. In most projects I've seen, it's either Bazel, or some kind of "build.sh".
-mod mode
module download mode to use: readonly, vendor, or mod.
By default, if a vendor directory is present and the go version in go.mod
is 1.14 or higher, the go command acts as if -mod=vendor were set.
Otherwise, the go command acts as if -mod=readonly were set.
See https://golang.org/ref/mod#build-commands for details.
If one of the goals of your build process is to be able to guarantee reproducible builds for software you've shipped to customers, and you depend on open source libraries from third parties you don't control, hosted on external services you don't control, then you probably need your own copies of those dependencies. Maybe vendored into version control, maybe sitting in your server of mirrored dependencies which you back up in case the upstream project permanently vanishes from the internet. But setting up and maintaining it takes time and effort and maybe it's not worth paying that cost if the context where your software is used doesn't value reproducible builds.
Go doesn't use a repository as a single source either, which is another problem in of itself.
Otherwise nobody will notice how fragile their workflow is until it is too late to fix it!
All other tests, including the ones on the CI server, were connecting to the hosted integration environment for any unmocked call (and thus randomly modifying state there).
For the worst offender I am aware of, try building a flutter project... it silent internet gets artifacts from at least three different packaging systems (node, cocoapods, android packages), all of which have caused hard-to-debug failures.
For example distris like Debian even mandate that you build software for them only relying on things that are already packaged. No arbitrary internet downloads allowed during build. The build environment contains only what is provided by the stated build-dependencies of your package, which are themself of course Debian packages, and some common minimal build base (like shell and some utils).
What if the distribution's version doesn't support the features you need?
What if it can't be built by relying only on things that are already packaged?
How do you distribute your software so it runs on other distributions? Do you maintain a different build for each package manager?
What if you want to run on platforms that don't have standard package managers, like MacOS or Windows?
How do you update the packages without internet downloads during provisioning the build?
The C/C++ model has proven to be fatally flawed. It hasn't worked, that's why modern languages eschew reliance on the distributions' package managers, and greenfield C/C++ projects use the same model.
I'd go so far as to say this model is a key reason why we need containerization to deploy modern software today - since you can't trust software written on distro X runs on distro Y because it packages dependency Z differently all the way up to the root of the dependency tree (glibc, usually).
The fundamental flaw of this model is that it inverts the dependency tree. Build time dependencies are local to individual projects and need to be handled separately from all other software. With few exceptions, Linux distros make this mistake and it's why we can't rely on distro package management for new projects.
You package it.
> What if the distribution's version doesn't support the features you need?
You package the version that does.
> What if it can't be built by relying only on things that are already packaged?
You package the dependencies first.
> How do you distribute your software so it runs on other distributions?
Give them the source so they can package it.
> Do you maintain a different build for each package manager?
Yes, that's the whole idea behind distributions.
> What if you want to run on platforms that don't have standard package managers, like MacOS or Windows?
Well, there you anyway downloaded random things form the internet…
But nowadays even those systems have package management that can be used!
> How do you update the packages without internet downloads during provisioning the build?
It's not about disabling package downloads (which come form a trusted source btw).
It's about disabling downloads form random places on the internet.
Also you can use a local package mirror. That's what the build systems of distributions do.
> The C/C++ model has proven to be fatally flawed. It hasn't worked, that's why modern languages eschew reliance on the distributions' package managers, and greenfield C/C++ projects use the same model.
Well, except for all packaged software out there…
> I'd go so far as to say this model is a key reason why we need containerization to deploy modern software today
Nobody needs that. Software form packages just works fine. All the Linux installations around the globe are a prove of that fact.
> since you can't trust software written on distro X runs on distro Y because it packages dependency Z differently all the way up to the root of the dependency tree (glibc, usually).
Of course you can. It works exceptionally fine. After you packaged it.
> The fundamental flaw of this model is that it inverts the dependency tree. Build time dependencies are local to individual projects and need to be handled separately from all other software. With few exceptions, Linux distros make this mistake and it's why we can't rely on distro package management for new projects.
More or less every distro does it wrong? And you know how to do it correctly?
Maybe you should share your knowledge with the clueless people building distributions! Get in touch with for example Debian and tell them they need to stop making this mistake.
By the way: How does your software reach the users when it's not packaged?
At least I hear "sometimes" that users demand proper software packages. But maybe it's just me…
>More or less every distro does it wrong? And you know how to do it correctly?
Yes, exactly. For distribution you use snap and flatpak, or application bundles on MacOS and Windows. For building you use a package manager that can install vendored dependencies pinned to specific versions, and do it locally to individual projects so they are not shared across multiple projects. This is the tact taken by modern tools and languages.
It's not my idea! It's what everyone building software in the last decade has migrated to.
Packaging software so it can be used by any distro's package manager is not viable, and reliance on such an outdated model is why using Linux sucks for everything but writing software to run on a single machine.
> At least I hear "sometimes" that users demand proper software packages. But maybe it's just me
And when they do you almost never go through the official/trusted mirrors because it will never be up to date, you host your own (maybe put up some signature that no one ever checks) so they just `sudo apt repository add ; sudo apt-get install -y` in your install instructions.
Sorry, could you elaborate on why Linux "sucks" for anything but single-user, please? I haven't heard this argument.
Well, everybody besides the biggest free software distributors out there, which are Linux distributions…
> Packaging software so it can be used by any distro's package manager is not viable, and reliance on such an outdated model is why using Linux sucks for everything but writing software to run on a single machine.
Yeh, I get it. That's why we need Docker…
Nobody is able to distribute software otherwise.
Well, except all those "distributions"…
> And when they do you almost never go through the official/trusted mirrors because it will never be up to date, you host your own (maybe put up some signature that no one ever checks) so they just sudo apt repository add ; sudo apt-get install -y in your install instructions.
Moment. Does this mean someone managed to build packages that work on different versions of even different distributions, which is obviously impossible as we just learned?
This starts getting hilarious!
I'm sorry for you that nobody want's to listen to your great ideas. Have you ever considered that you're completely wrong?
Rust has a robust memory model, but everything else about it insists on copying the fragility of the NPM ecosystem.
The recent hoopla around a bunch of Rust mods quitting revealed that my suspicions are precisely true — key Rust staff also sit on the NPM board!
Anyone remember when Github took down youtube-dl?
I wonder how much Big Brother data Microsoft is gathering on Github developers. "Oh, as part of our hiring process, just like we scan your FB and Twitter, we also scan your Github activity to evaluate your performance as best as our machine learning overlords can assess it. Do you create Github projects and then abandon them when unfixed issues accumulate? Our algorithm thinks you're a bad hire."
I would blame the law (DMCA), not those forced to abide by the law (Github)
Public support on which grounds?
Did GH ignore a counter notice?
> I would blame the law (DMCA), not those forced to abide by the law (Github)
It seems even in the context of US-based companies that some companies are a little more "trigger-happy" with DMCA and other claims compared to others.
What about those abusing [a misrepresentation of] the law (the RIAA) and the members who pay their dues (Microsoft)?
This data is public and to be honest I’m amazed we haven’t yet seen a YC startup promoting that they do exactly this.
I'd say those people do have a point about how manipulation tactics work, but email being inconvenient is bullshit.
On the other hand, you have email: open-source clients are available for virtually every platform, it doesn't turn my laptop into an electric bar fire, it doesn't drain my phone's battery (or if it does, I could just install another client!), etc.
It's quite sad how something as beautiful as email is being replaced by corporate garbage like Teams, which comes bundled with Office 365 (and that's a whole 'nother crapfest). Uch.
In another thread a few weeks ago about code signing, I mentioned we should just hand Apple Source code for the apps it distributes in the store, to make review more thorough and reliable. Replies objected "Why would you give your source code to another company?" ........ and github is still a thing? ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28794243)
Also, ironic De Icaza ended up working for... the company he wanted to work for all along, ...Microsoft. Though Friedman left Microsoft (or at least stepped down as GitHub CEO).
De Icaza was also featured in the Finnish movie The Code [1].
This is pretty much why many organizations out there, as well as i personally for my homelab use self-hosted GitLab instances: https://about.gitlab.com/
Though in practice there are a lot of other options out there, like Gitea (https://gitea.com/) and GitBucket (https://gitbucket.github.io/), though maybe less so for alternative source control systems (e.g. SVN has been all forgotten, however that's a personal pet peeve).
Not only that, but i also utilize my own Sonatype Nexus (https://www.sonatype.com/products/repository-oss?topnav=true) instances to great success: for doing everything from mirroring container images that i need from DockerHub (e.g. due to their proposed removal policies for old images and already adopted rate limits), to mirroring Maven/npm/NuGet/pip/Ruby and other dependencies, so i don't have to connect to things on the Internet whenever i want to do a new build.
That not only improves resiliency against things on the Internet going down (apart from situations where i need something new and it's not yet cached), but also improves performance a lot in practice, when only the company servers need to be hit, or my own personal servers in the data center for my cloud hosted stuff, or my own personal servers in my homelab for my own stuff.
Admittedly, all of that takes a bit of setup, especially if you happen to expose anything to the web in a zero trust fashion (permissible for my own stuff, as long as i'm okay with manually managing CVEs just to probably get hacked in the end anyways, but definitely not something that any corporation with an internal network would want to do), but in my eyes that's still worth the effort, if you value being in control of your own software stack and the ecosystem around it.
It's probably much less worth it, if you don't see that as a benefit and don't want to be the one responsible for whatever project you're working on getting hacked, e.g. if you'd fail to patch out the recent GitLab CVE where exiftools could execute arbitrary code, which is probably the case if you don't have the resources to constantly throw at maintenance, in comparison to companies with 100x - 1000x more resources than you have for that sort of stuff.
That's right. Someone should really come up with a decentralized VCS. /scnr
Setting up your own git server is not hard, but it's not as easy as just getting github or gitlab to run it for you. Way too many people take the easier path, even though the harder path is not actually that hard.
There are also multiple solutions.
Bullshit. Getting it set up in a secure and public way is an order of magnitude or two more difficult than it would need to be for mass use which is what we're talking about here.
When you have a situation where a the vast majority of people find something too difficult, the problem (from the perspective of actually getting it happen) is not the people the problem is with the proposed solution.
> There are also multiple solutions
Multiple solutions does not generally make things easier/better even if it's desirable for other reasons.
This way, if GitHub falls off of the face of the earth tomorrow, the packages still build. Also: If some open source maintainer deletes an older version of a package, replacing it with a new one with a different API, the local package will still build.
(The local build process will have to be set up to use the local artifactory to pull dependencies, of course.)
As soon as you start banking on "the cloud" to get useful work done, the very first thing that should enter your mind is:
"Any of these nifty services can just turn into a pumpkin at any time"
Fallacy #1 - The cloud is reliable
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_distributed_compu...
Centralisation into just a few large providers is another bad idea we're heading towards or have already arrived at.
Which is just as true for on premise servers.
It won't go away on its own, or like Travis make you dependent on it, get bought out by VCs who milk your dependency for money.
When it goes down, it only impacts your jobs until you solve it, not single-point-of-failues the whole internet and whole programming languages.
Your self-sufficiency also acts to stop all software endevour concentrating in the hands of one monopolistic American company.
Until they get bought, or simply discontinue / modify the product, and/or you fail to read the fine print on the ToS. Or they simply lie.
flutter channel master
And it kept failing with:
------
git: remote: Internal Server Error.
git: remote:
git: fatal: unable to access 'https://github.com/flutter/flutter.git/': The requested URL returned error: 500
Switching channels failed with error code 128.
------
thought I was doing something wrong and spent some time troubleshooting.
there aren't a lot of HTTP error codes, and it's worth remembering the most common ones, like the 200, 300, 400 series and 500 itself. will help you troubleshooting later.
Heck, maybe have some helper when outputting error message doing something like:
log.error("Could not download fizbulator v3.21.4", ping-btw)
Something like that.
Same thing happens (should happen) when you visit your ISPs website and look for registered downtime — many requests from one zip code from multiple ips should trigger an alarm if the isp is competent.
Can't tell you how many times I've had a customer write to me, only to be receiving some automated alerts 30-40 seconds later.
But as a counterpoint I was once working in a project where our monitoring dashboard showed an anomaly in incoming traffic. It turned out that it was an ISP problem and that we were the first ones to notice according to them.
So maybe part of the answer as to why customers are faster is that different monitoring systems are monitoring each other :)
So in a moment like this, you can convert https://github.com/opencv/opencv/archive/4.5.3.zip to https://archive.github.com/opencv/opencv/archive/4.5.3.zip. Maybe an implicit agreement of somewhat stale data by add the sub-domain "archive.". They'll try to maintain low sync times on a "best effort basis".)
They can do better, they just don't want to.
Besides that, how are you going to cause "more harm than good"?
A status page is a kind of PR. Think of it like a policy for a flight attendant to come out into the cabin to tell everyone what's going on when the plane encounters turbulence. That policy is Public Relations -driven. You only do it if you expect that it's positive PR, compared to not doing it — i.e. if telling people what's going on is boosting your reputation compared to saying nothing at all.
If a status page just makes your stakeholders think your service is crappy, such that you'd be better off with no status page at all... then why have a status page? It's not doing its job as a PR tool.
But that's not true. The company could do better. But the individual employees cannot. The individual employees are constrained by the profit motive of the company. They are not allowed by corporate policy to set up automatic status updates, for about the same reason they're not allowed to post their corporate log-in credentials: that the result would very likely be disastrous to the company's bottom line.
(Though, really, the corporations in most verticals are in a race-to-the-bottom in most respects. Even if you treat GitHub as a single entity capable of coherent desires, it probably doesn't desire to avoid automatic status updates. It needs to avoid them, to survive in a competitive market where everyone else is also avoiding them. People — and corporations — do lots of things they don't want to do, to survive.)
GitHub, meanwhile, is a million different things to a hundred million different people. Users of e.g. Homebrew, with its big monolithic ports system hosted as a github repo, have a very different SLI for Github than do users of some language-ecosystem package manager that allows you to pull deps directly from Github; than do people who depend on GitHub Actions to CI their builds on push; than do people doing code-review to others' PRs; than do people using Github mostly for its Wiki, or Issues, or downloading Releases, or Github Pages, or even just reading single-page-with-a-README repos, ala the various $FOO-awesome projects.
For many of these use-cases, Github isn't degraded right now. For others, it is.
If you ask for Github (or any service with this many different use-cases and stakeholders) to measure by the union of all these SLIs, then the service would literally never be not-degraded. In systems of sufficient scale, there's likely no point where every single component and feature and endpoint of the system is all working and robust and fast, all at once. Never has been, never will be.
And anything less than just going for the union of all those SLIs, is asking Github to exercise human judgement over which kinds of service degradation qualify as part of their own SLOs. Which is exactly what they're doing.
Certainly, internal to services like this, there are all sorts of alerting systems constantly going off to tell SREs what things need fixing. But not all of those things immediately, or even quickly, or even ever, translate to SLO violations. There are some outlier users whose use-cases just break the system's semantics, where those use-cases just aren't "in scope" for the SLO. As long as those users are only breaking the system for themselves, the degradation they experience won't ever translate to an SLO breakage.
E.g., a bit tongue in cheek:
> An MMO is a very simple system, in that there's only one Service Level Indicator (SLI) that devs, shareholders, and players all agree on. That SLI is "can a player connect to the server, and perform regular gameplay actions, without a ridiculous amount of per-action latency."
Wouldn't you say that in an MMO of sufficient scale there's likely no point where every single component and feature and endpoint of the system is all working and robust and fast, all at once?
> In systems of sufficient scale, there's likely no point where every single component and feature and endpoint of the system is all working and robust and fast, all at once. Never has been, never will be.
Couldn't we redefine SLIs as "can the user connect to the server and perform regular user actions without a ridiculous amount of per-action latency"?
My point was that Github has no "average user." Github is like Microsoft Word: each user only uses 10% of the features, but it's a different 10% for every user. Yes, there are some features that are in the critical path for all users (loading the toplevel repo view in the website might be one); but for any given particular user, there will be plenty of other features that are also in their critical path.
An MMO, meanwhile, does have an "average user"; in fact, MMOs have ideal users. An MMO's goal is to induce every user (player) to play the game a certain way, so that the company can concentrate their resources on making that particular play experience as polished as possible. There is, per se, an idiomatic "rut" in the road that players can "click into", ending up doing exactly the same short-term game loops that every other player before and after them has also done when playing the game.
MMOs can be reduced to a single SLO: can the ideal player have fun playing the game at the moment?
GitHub cannot be reduced to a single SLO, because there is no ideal user of GitHub. There are probably two or three thousand separate "ideal users" (= critical, non-universal user stories) for GitHub.
> Wouldn't you say that in an MMO of sufficient scale there's likely no point where every single component and feature and endpoint of the system is all working and robust and fast, all at once?
No, not really; MMOs have a complexity ceiling by operational necessity. They aren't composed of a ridiculous sprawling array of components. They might use Service-Oriented Architecture, but in the end, you don't scale an MMO vertically by making more and more complex clustered systems with master-to-master replication and so forth. You scale MMOs by either pure-vertical hardware scaling, or by horizontal shared-nothing sharding.
(The key thing to realize about MMO servers is that they're OLTP servers — they need to track a whole bunch of users doing a whole bunch of simple actions at once; and therefore they can't really be doing overly-much computation on those actions, lest they lose shared-realtime verisimilitude.)
Not sure if any MMO reaches Github level, most likely not. But I don’t think there is a ceiling or any sort of hard distinction; i.e. I think 5 years from now we could have a MMO with complexity of today’s Github. Maybe it will be called a metaverse though.
EVE is literally the only exception to "MMOs scale by horizontal shared-nothing sharding"; and that's why I mentioned the option EVE uses instead — namely, "vertical scaling of hardware" (i.e. having a really honking powerful single-master multi-read-replica DB cluster.)
In neither case is anything "clever" (i.e. inefficient for the sake of developer productivity / enterprise integration / etc.) happening. There's no CQRS message queues, no async batch writes, no third-party services halfway around the world being called into, no external regulatory systems doing per-action authorization, no separate "normalized data warehouse for OLAP, denormalized data for runtime" forking writes, no low-level cross-replicated integration between a central multitenant cloud system and individual enterprise-hosted tenant silos, etc etc.
> With so many different play styles and optional components (guilds, pvp, official forums, paid content, user made content, etc)
I think you misunderstood me when I said that there's a rut that users are guided into. The thing about MMOs is that the ideal user uses all the features (because the game incentivizes doing so, and because the more deeply and broadly users engage with the game's systems, the higher their retention / lower their churn will predictably be.) The ideal player is in both a party (or constantly switching parties) and a guild; has paid for all the DLC and regularly buys cash-shop items; plays every piece of PVE content you build; engages in PVP content and co-op UGC content all the time; etc.
Which is to say, for the ideal user, "the game" either works or it doesn't, because "the game" is the whole thing. Every feature needs to work, in order for the game to work. Because the ideal user engages with every feature. The SLO is, essentially, "can you do a completionist run through every bit of content we have." (If you're clever, and can make your server deterministic, you can create a completionist run as a backend-event demo file and run it in CI!)
And this is, in part, why MMOs are kept architecturally simple. Everything needs to work!
(And I don't just mean "simple" in terms of the backend not being a sprawling enterprise-y mess, but rather usually a single monolithic binary that can keep a lot of state in memory. I also mean "simple" in terms of as much of the game as possible being pushed to local, mostly-ephemeral-state client-side logic. MMOs are, often, a lot less "online" than one might think. It's very hard to "break" an MMO with a content update, because most content updates are to zonal scripts whose state doesn't persist past the lifetime of the in-memory load of that zone in a particular interacting device.)
With GitHub, their ideal users — of which there are many — can be individually satisfied by very small subsets of the system, such that they're still satisfying almost all their users even if one system is horribly breaking. That's what an SLO is "for", in the end: to tell you whether different subpopulations of users with different needs are happy or not. If you only have one "core" subpopulation, one ideal user, then you only need one SLO, to track that one ideal user's satisfaction. If you have more, you need more.
1. It clearly indicates that automatic systems are failing to detect the outage. 2. It also indicates that no one is aware about the incident to manually signal the outage (or that there is no manual override).
Basically, it makes a difference between "yeah, shit happened, we know (and maybe working on it)" and "hah, they don't even know themselves".
Partially because these large systems have some kind of ongoing issue at any given time, so it's challenging to provide a meaningful live status that isn't a bit misleading and could cause misdirected panic.
Partially because you don't want to give potential attackers (eg ddos) any insight if/how their methods are affecting your systems.
Partially because there are SLAs and reputation at risk, and you don't want to admit to any more downtime than you absolutely have to.
Of course, in the real world, I don't think there's a single IT admin who didn't just start nervously sweating and pulling at their collar after reading the above, imagining it as something their CEO said and encouraging them to target it. Nobody can really do this — and that in turn says something important about how those metrics really look in most systems.
HN seems to be going down for the massive amount of requests!
To be fair, redditstatus.com is quite nice with their sparkline headline metrics. It at least lets you know _something_ is happening even if they haven't yet declared an incident.
this is because status pages, at least the green/yellow/red light bits, are usually updated manually by a human. because if you automate those things, the automation can fail.
also, it's a weekend, a holiday weekend for some, so expecting updates to happen on the minute is a little unrealistic.
ALSO, it may take a bit of time for their "what is and is not really down" process a bit of time to be followed. on the weekend. by people who maybe haven't done this before outside of a training event 9 months ago or something.
> somehow
it is not hard to imagine how, to me.
I assume a company this size has teams working around the clock, the question is the priority. I guess GitHub doesn't have a high enough priority which is very sad.
I understand it's humans but we're also humans and we managed to figure out exactly what's up and what's down and we even reported it very conveniently here on HN for the people at GitHub for free
Sorry for the rant I spent a few very confused minutes trying to understand wtf I'm doing wrong, because naive me was thinking there's no way GitHub is down....
I bet it will one day, what with legislative "kill switches" being a thing.
At least that way, as a user of the service, you can make the assumption that it could be broken, and act accordingly, or at least take certain precautions while you wait for the human-confirmed status value.
¹ https://twitter.com/dmitshur/status/1223304521767669761
² https://github.com/shurcooL/home/commit/bb504a4ef0d7c552d363...
I mean, the moment it went down I'm sure Github's SREs were paged. Give them a minute to process it first, jeez.
Github has no excuse.
We can and will hold them accountable for their decision to hide information from their paying customers and any other case they prioritize their ego over their users.
the status page needs to be updated by a human that knows what the issues are, and not automation that will flag everything red the instant anything trivial in the automation fails.
you want static pages and images served up, nothing automated or scripted.
> you want static pages and images served up
Totally separate issue. You can update static pages with any method.
...Copilot must've been bored over the holidays, so probably went on to find a way and snacked on a few freshly updated repos, whichever were close by, then covered it all up as just a degraded perf incident... You've gotta feed da beast!
There should be a general "web" component marked as unavailable - I can't even hit the homepage.
(My self hosted gitlab is working fine)
I'd take the occasional downtimes of cloud solutions, if it means not having to use some of the self-hosted software I had to to use at work.
It’s why we run certain services in my department ourselves rather than central IT, because central IT thinks that the best time for planned downtime is 6pm, which is hilarious as for our department 5pm-11pm is the most critical time, and the best time to make changes is between 9 and 12 when the services are least important (not that we have a full outage, but we can have a degraded outage - our internet service for half of our equipment can take upto 20 seconds to fail over, and not every end device is dual connected)
We only do security upgrades or wait for x.1 upgrades. Never x.0
The hosted .com however I wouldn't recommend.
I accidentally closed my browser so I reopened it with Undo Tab Close, and GitHub's tab title was labeled "Your account recovery is unable to load" for a very brief moment. Then the GitHub error site with the pink unicorn loaded. The URL which was supposed to load was https://github.com/hlissner/doom-emacs which I had tried to load about 15 minutes earlier or so, but which would not load because the site is down.
I imagine the ability to resist $billion offers when you're successful would be one.
My first thought was https://radicle.xyz/.
What a cruel twist of fate. Their downloads page is hosted on Github Pages, which is down right now! https://radicle.xyz/downloads.html
In any other situation I'd recommend it since it really was the tool of choice for decentralized git repos with lots of cool features. (Despite the "Empowering developers with DeFi building blocks like NFTs, token streams, and more" mentioned on the home page which throws me off)
Edit: It seems like the download page is up and working now.
- despite being decentralized, you still need moderation and access control
- open source projects typically aren't great at frontend UI/UX
It would be neat if I could publish git repos on IPFS and receive patches from people. It's just hard to compete with a centralized, CDN'd service where you can click and get a result in 100ms.
edit: cribbing from sibling comment, it looks like Radicle has thought hard about decentralized git: https://radicle.xyz/blog/radicle-link.html
You mean Git? The Linux Kernel for e.g. does this just fine.
- A single startup file that starts up gitserver, a p2p node to enable repo discovery and submission of PRs.
- A web/electrum client that provides PR merge interface, and links to forks.
- user ids are their public keys, with non-unique nicks. There will only usually be one "jungly" on a repo.
We DO NOT need a blockchain for this. All those ethereum projects are messing things up by introducing an unnecessary coin that we really don't need.
$ man -k patches
git-am(1) - Apply a series of patches from a mailbox
git-format-patch(1) - Prepare patches for e-mail submission
git-imap-send(1) - Send a collection of patches from stdin to an IMAP folder
git-send-email(1) - Send a collection of patches as emails
You totally could develop in the kernel workflow, everything done over email, but are you willing to?
And I need it right now.
Guess I'll be setting up a local git instance very soon...
edit: by local I meant in the intranet. not on my local machine.
The incorrectness of this highlights how useful DVCS can be — a git server going down doesn't affect working locally at all.
> nltk.download("punkt")
Apparently NLTK uses Github for hosting their sentence tokenization models.
https://i.imgur.com/x4IFTwY.png
*EDIT* Now CodeSpaces is gone
Got one after you posted at least
But it also seems like that apart from the webhooks, the APIs and the pages served are slower too.
It's weasel words in their purest form.
Right up there with "We apologise for any inconveniences you may have experienced".
If you are apologising it's because you know you inconvenienced someone.
I'd genuinely have more respect if instead they just said "We fucked up, we'll do better".
It's at least honest.
Yep, can't even push
Not everyone hates you today, don’t be upset about toxic posts like this one.
No, do get upset. You have contributed to the centralization and increasing dependence on a single entity, while piggybacking of the advances that distributed version control have brought about. You have blurred the difference between Git and your service, to the point that people don't know about the former, and routinely abuse it. You have normalized the fundamentally inconvenient "pull request" workflow as the default for a lot of software development (introducing the artificial steps of "forking" and proposing a "pull request"), to such a degree that people now complain when they are confronted with anything else. This is not a one-off issue, and isn't fixed when the site is operational again. You deserve all the criticism, and no not coffee chocolate.
The lifespan of our civilization is just a glimpse. Do you really think your toxic comment will make it brighter for a moment?
Look at this image: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/hubble-astronomers...
EDIT: nope, command line is down, too.
- Github
- My Git server
- My local git
No need to worry about failures. :-)
I think I lost track of how many times they went down since, suggesting to self-host, repeatedly. [0] So they seem to continue to be very unreliable, I expected them to be up without any issues for a month.
Anyway, going all in on GitHub once again makes no sense. So at least have a (self-hosted) backup solution to this.
(My app binaries are hosted on Github; not sure if it’s the way to go but hey it works).
[1] https://writequit.org/denver-emacs/presentations/2017-04-11-...
BTW what was the error mesage?
Good luck!
Try `M-x info-apropos` and type "helm".
Info docs form a tree: press '^' to go up a node, 'n' and 'p' to go forward and back on same level, '[' and ']' to go forward/back a page like a book.
Guess I'll work on my stuff.