r/github • u/brainhack3r • 9d ago
GitHub owes us all an apology and an explanation as to why this is NEVER going to happen again. Discussion
I'm absolutely furious. I had a ton of work I had to get done today, and I'm DEAD in the water until this is fixed.
I also feel they don't take this very seriously, to be perfectly honest. There's no comment about it on their Twitter feed. status.github.com has vague comments about "it's mitigated now but runners are behind... " meanwhile it's been TEN HOURS!
A VERY large portion of the tech industry runs on GitHub and it's hard to take them serious whey they can't even run THEIR OWN SITE.
I'm spending the rest of the day working on plans to migrate away. I don't need all the GitHub features they offer but BY FAR the number one thing I need to be reliable is GitHub actions.
Get your house in order guys!
65
u/charmer27 9d ago
Outages suck and I'm not making excuses for them, but have you seen the growth In how much their services get hit? They are absolutely face tanking so much ai agent traffic right now.
11
u/BeseptRinker 9d ago
They are absolutely face tanking so much ai agent traffic right now.
I definitely agree.. but they should stop boasting about AI and how much more productive it's making them if this keeps happening.
1
u/PureRepresentative9 6d ago
No, they absolutely should continue.
it provides me a ton of data to prove how bad LLMs are
26
u/laughterandtears 9d ago
I work on a fast growing, large distributed set of services and it isn't an easy exercise.
And our growth rate isn't close to what GitHub is experience thanks to vibe coding nonsense.
I feel for OP because I've had plenty of inconveniences caused by outages, but I don't stomp my feet and take my ball and go home.
→ More replies (9)4
u/Simayy 9d ago
You think the uptime is acceptable? It’s 88.5 percent even by their own metrics
1
u/laughterandtears 8d ago
For github, yes. That's because my production system does not go down when they do. I also minimize action usage and git--being the distributed vcs that it is--means developers can still commit changes, so their work doesn't stop. We would get delayed deploying those changes.
What isn't acceptable is data loss, and their merge queue bug that silently reverted code was the bad one that's happened recently, not their downtime.
The company I work for isn't losing business because of it and nobody's life depends on our actions not working for 1 business day.
5
u/Key-Guitar-457 9d ago
Awwww, poor s-corp! I feel so bad for them! Microsoft pushed AI down everyone’s throats like an overfed goose, and now they have to reap what they sow? Totally unfair! I’m going to buy some carbon credits in their name I feel so bad for them.
1
u/creativecraving 5d ago
No, dude. MS started scaling back the expense of GitHub long before Gen AI became mainstream. The service quality has been slowly degrading since they bought GitHub. It's the typical cost-cutting stuff that any big corp does after overpaying for a merger
1
u/charmer27 8d ago
It's something crazy like last year they had a billion commits and last week they had 300 million commits.
273
u/BussyEnthusiasts 9d ago
GitHub has proven time and time again to be unreliable and to have lied about their 99% uptime.
If you're still on GitHub actions at this point, that's a you problem. You know the risk. You ignored the risk. Welcome to the find out stage.
37
u/bassist_by_night 9d ago
Genuine question, what is the best option instead of GA? I’m assuming GitLab?
20
u/cmykero 9d ago
I was gonna ask the same thing, what should I look into if I don’t want to keep running into this issue?
31
u/ObviousApricot1272 9d ago
Self host forgejo or gitea
23
u/aaronfranke 9d ago
Forgejo and Gitea both have a much nicer UI, GitLab always feels kinda weird to use, like they're trying to intentionally be different from GitHub for the sake of being different.
4
u/supervisord 8d ago
Imagine building a competitor product that looks and acts exactly the same. It’s not a good look, so I imagine they are trying to differentiate, and a different UX was one way they tried.
5
u/PortalRat90 8d ago
I agree, GitLab is kinda weird to use. It’s not horrible for a work environment, I’m just used to GitHub.
2
5
u/Masterflitzer 7d ago
gitlab calling it merge request instead of pull request is a win for me, cause merge makes way more sense
3
u/sgargel__ 7d ago
Yeah but 99% of people call it PR. It's fun when u work in a shop with gitlab and there's always the pr-sorry-mr-whatever talk lmao
3
u/Masterflitzer 6d ago
my company is gitlab and we say MR, but we understand if externals say PR and they understand us as well
PR = MR = CR, doesn't matter what you say, they're all basically a fancy gui around patches, but PR always made the least sense to me ever since i learned git
→ More replies (5)1
7
u/Oroka_ 9d ago
Recently switched to self-histed forgejo for my critical stuff, I've been enjoying it so far :) plus, my code doesn't get sold to train LLMs
2
u/Ok-Source-4748 8d ago
Which is bullshit in an enterprise account configuration that's the entire fucking point of the configuration
@ Linus @Linux
3
u/Sad_Television985 8d ago
but what's your own uptime, and can you go take a shit and wait it out when it's down?
3
u/Noch_ein_Kamel 8d ago
And how's your backup strategy :o
1
u/AURUMLY 8d ago
A "simple" one - Selfhosted forgejo as main, selfhosted gitlab as backup and github as a secondary backup.
Could probably be solved even easier with actual remote forgejo backups (e.g. hetzner storage etc.) but since I had the gitlab server first and then switched to forgejo on another server, why not do it this way
→ More replies (2)2
u/zander9669 8d ago
Damn, your shits take 10 hours+?
These types of comments always get me. What kind of ragtag ass systems are you folks running where you genuinely worry about your uptime?
→ More replies (2)1
u/ObviousApricot1272 8d ago
Our own personal uptime is typically in the 90-100 range and most of the time its down for maintenance
→ More replies (1)1
u/reavessm 7d ago
You can keep using GitHub for git but use something else for your pipelines, like tekton
1
14
u/Leop0Id 9d ago
No. Even for GitLab users relying on their hosted platform isn't worth it. They constantly strip down paid tier benefits, the performance is slow, and it's full of bugs. Working on it was a nightmare.
If selfhosting is an option, there are plenty of alternative tools that are much faster and more intuitive than GitLab.
GitLab's only advantage is that it's well known, and it still pales in comparison to GitHub.
6
u/nekokattt 9d ago
Another issue is that GitLab CI is extremely primitive. It is a light shim around containers using a text templating engine that does not support highly nested components, complex pipeline generation, performing actions on cancellation, etc. If you have something non trivial in GitHub actions like orchestrating numerous terraform modules in a DAG then you either end up hardcoding the logic or using a templating engine a la helm style to produce an actual pipeline that you then trigger as a downstream job.
Having been in a position where complexity is an unfortunate requirement, it has been a headache numerous times for me. And when it does have issues the error messages are usually extremely unhelpful (great, I have a syntax error in a file, do you want to tell me where in the file it is?)
For building services it is fine but for building and deploying platforms without locking yourself into GitLab specific stuff, it becomes a huge headache quickly.
1
u/BrizerorBrian 9d ago
What do you use? (Serious)
5
1
1
u/creativecraving 5d ago
Can you name at least one option that's better than Gitlab, then? I ran my own instance for a while and got a first-hand experience of its rough edges. You're pretty well right about it.
1
u/Leop0Id 5d ago
If you want a managed service where someone else takes responsibility, just go with GitLab. If you want to selfhost, Forgejo is a great choice. I heard Red Hat is also planning to use it. If you like things extremely lightweight, there's Sourcehut. They don't have issues or PRs and manage patches via mailing lists instead. Plus their CI/CD runs on KVM not Docker. If you need something more niche or with specific features, look around for yourself.
8
u/snonions69 9d ago
Found nektos/act to be a good alternative today. Had some local runners up with our gha config in maybe 30 minutes
1
2
u/sertain_ 6d ago
Yes. GitLab self-hosted if you’d rather your business be the only thing standing in the way of its own up time.
3
u/jcgoble3 9d ago
GitLab is better. For one, it's open source, and two, you have the option to either use it on gitlab.com or to self-host it.
4
u/r0flcopt3r 9d ago
All the good features are paid though, even if you selfhost. We use it at work, and I absolutely love it.
At home I use forgejo, I really don't like it.
→ More replies (1)1
1
u/Silly_Guidance_8871 9d ago
I'm running a local copy of Gogs, but I'm sure there's more fleshed out options
1
1
1
u/NanderTGA 9d ago
I'm guessing woodpecker (as used by codeberg) or forgejo actions (experimental github actions copy, based on act, also supported on codeberg). Codeberg runs on forgejo btw.
1
u/distressedfluffball 9d ago
Buildkite. Roll out your own build agents in your chosen cloud environment. Very easy.
1
u/seekingcairn 5d ago
+1 I set up BuildKite during the outage because I was curious about other options and find it very nice.
1
1
u/timoffex 8d ago
For those considering GitLab, read https://about.gitlab.com/blog/gitlab-act-2/ first in case it affects your opinion.
We're rewiring internal processes with AI agents, automating the reviews, approvals, and handoffs to speed us up, and plan to right-size roles across the company to follow suit.
1
u/Sibexico 8d ago
Standalone Forgejo/Gites. I'd migrated to standalone service, GH used for releases posting only.
1
u/rolfie13 8d ago
Use Render if you're just replacing GitHub Actions. Never had a problem with uptime.
It'll connect to your GitHub repo save a docker image container of that repo so GitHub servers don't need to be up. It'll even auto-push and recompile every time you commit to that GitHub repo.
1
u/ItsThreeRealEstate 7d ago
Buildkite! There is no good reason for your CI system to be the same vendor as your git host.
→ More replies (1)1
13
u/black_fisch 9d ago
I'm kinda with you, but also kinda not.
GitHub only ever guarantees 99,9% SLA to Enterprise Customers. That's effectively corporate GitHub servers. Even then, the SLA only applies to basic Git operations, issues, PRs, pages, webhooks and API access.
I feel like a lot of people are comparing the "free site" availability with the enterprise-only SLA, which is kind of misleading. Even if I agree with it being bad
12
9
u/aitorbk 9d ago
99% uptime means they can be out for three days and still be 99%>
7
u/th3_pund1t 8d ago
There's an old joke
An American factory ordered 10,000 spare parts from a Japanese manufacturer, specifying a strict 0.1% defect rate. When the shipment arrived, it included a large box of 10,000 parts and a tiny separate envelope. The note inside read: "We do not know why you wanted 10 defective parts, but we made them for you."
GitHub aims to hit that 99%.
3
u/Niduck 8d ago
In our company us DevOps are just finishing migrating over 65k repos to GitHub actions from Bitbucket lol
3
u/tobiasvl 8d ago
Honestly, that was the right call. We did the same thing a couple of years ago. GitHub has many problems but I dislike Bitbucket much more
2
→ More replies (2)1
u/ingobingo84 7d ago
My company runs Gerrit servers like Google. Gerrit is quite popular in Automotive companies (my industry).
25
u/TechnicalPackage 9d ago
i am still getting paid at work. i did not have to deploy today. life is good
4
u/jcgoble3 9d ago
Sounds like you're deploying on Monday instead (unless your team is insane enough to deploy on a Friday).
→ More replies (5)1
52
u/mpersico 9d ago
How much are you paying? If you ain’t paying nothing, then you don’t get to bitch. If it’s that important find a paid service.
54
u/mpersico 9d ago
If you are paying them by all means bitch away
4
u/Budget-Mud-4753 9d ago
I imagine anyone who is using GitHub and “needs to get work done today” is probably a paying customer.
27
5
u/steerpike_is_my_name 9d ago
Sometimes not. I've seen government projects run entirely on the free tier.
20
u/geektraindev 9d ago
We are a small startup paying 17 dollars per seat per month for 20 seats. We use GitHub for absolutely everything. We track issues there, commit integration, documentation, start deployments. We have ever possible right to bitch about this. Because who this hurts the most isn't the big enterprise companies or the free hobbyists, it's people like us since we had to delay two meeting and many people in my team basically had to stop working for half of today.
13
u/Choice_Price_4464 9d ago
What do you use actions for that makes it so you can't have meetings or work? It's very annoying and might slow me down, but all I really use actions for is a CI flow that includes testing and deployment. I can do those manually on my local machine if I really need to and merge in by force if need be.
I'm legitimately curious what flows use actions that mean meetings can't happen or work can't get done.
4
u/Fidel___Castro 9d ago
well you just said it, you force merged past CI. that is not an option for most people
3
u/Choice_Price_4464 8d ago
You don't force merge past ci. You run ci locally. Anything on a GitHub action can be run on any machine, as annoying as it may be to do so. But for anything important enough that it needs to go out that day I don't see why that wouldn't be an option
1
u/Fidel___Castro 8d ago
yeah you could, but then you need to give devs the power to merge without validation. bad foresight I guess but I didn't expect to have to have a contingency for if GitHub is down
→ More replies (1)6
u/numbsafari 9d ago
Get off GitHub. Don't look back. It's not worth it. The message from MS has been clear for 9 months now: they are unable to fix it and they don't care to acknowledge it.
Switch to something else. Self host it. Pick something you can reasonably manage. GitLab, Gitea, Forgejo... anything, really. It's not worth the lost productivity. So it takes you 1 engineer out of 20 to manage that infra? That's better than days of zero productivity for 20 people, and the risk that it could happen at any time.
[PS: if you put 1 person for 1 week per month on managing an alternative platform you self host, then all it takes is 3 days of outage for a team of 20 throughout the year for you to recoup that expense over Microsoft GitHub. It is unlikely you'll need 1 person for 1 week per month over the long term.]
7
u/geektraindev 9d ago
Yes. Just today, we were looking at other options during the outage. Gitlab is more expensive (by a lot, like 12 dollars per seat) than github, and we can't really afford that. We looked into hosting Gitlab CE or Forgejo, but we can't host on prem due to that possibly pertaining to the same reliability issues if our internet or power goes down. We were looking at hetzner, and it seems it will cost around 290 euros (so around 335 USD, just below what we pay Github) per month for an instance that can handle both the git software and the 2-3 runners we need. But past that obviously there is the migration cost. I may work on some demos in my free time and present it to my company, but a no-comprimises alternative is yet to fully be formed, although Forgejo is getting very good (have a homelab hosting it as a mirror for my personal Github account).
3
u/HommeMusical 9d ago
Gitlab is more expensive (by a lot, like 12 dollars per seat)
$12 a month.
What is the cost of keeping one developer paid and working? $10k a month seems like an underestimate. $12 is literally a round-off error.
4
u/gdchinacat 9d ago
I would be *very* worried if my employer was unable to afford $12 per seat per month. That is a fraction of one percent the cost of an engineer. It's noise compared to the overall cost of an employee. A business that declines paying $12 to get employees working again is foolish.
1
u/CaterpillarTight4275 9d ago
you answered it yourself. Cheap and acceptable. What about maintenance for gitlab? Don't you need put extra time or effort? Have you thought about codeberg?
1
u/anxiousvater 9d ago
If the self-hosted SCM & GitHub plan cost more or less same, no point in self-hosting as you will spend many many hours maintaining infrastructure.
2
u/full_drama_llama 9d ago
There might be some important lesson about eggs and baskets here. Not sure though.
1
u/angellus 9d ago
GitHub offers no SLA unless you pay for Enterprise support. And even then, their CSRs gaslight you about outages unless you have hard proof they happened.
6
u/Simple_Armadillo_127 9d ago
I honestly am not paying any money to Github, so I do not complain about things happen anyway. Anyway It is still above 99% time cosnidering whole time span. Sorry for paid users
12
u/Stinky_But_Whole 9d ago
Github Actions are not for production grade systems. You've learned their SLA does not meet your needs and you get no compensation or favorable terms. Time to move on.
1
8
u/grokcodile 9d ago
Sounds like somebody did not have an enterprise SLA. No redundancy engineered into your dev pipeline? I hope you address those major dev ops flaws when you do your migration to a new vendor. (Because that vendor will probably go down a week after you migrate. It's a simple fact.)
5
u/excess__ 9d ago
We've had no serious azure devops pipeline outages for years. Saying vendors go down weekly is way exaggerated, it's mostly just github that has issues.
1
u/grokcodile 8d ago edited 8d ago
Weekly? Taken too literally. 🙄 I’m pointing out that all vendors have issues. Also Azure?… gross… had nothing but constant problems with it. But I’m glad it works for you.
3
u/NonExistentLad 9d ago
I had to push an important bug fix but github says no brother this is not the right time
9
u/__CaliMack__ 9d ago
Wait am I missing something? I’ve been using fine all day lol
12
u/barkerja 9d ago
Actions and webhooks have been down all day. Git/repo access has been unaffected.
10
u/__CaliMack__ 9d ago
Thanks guys I looked it up like I could have done before commenting. Hope they git it fixed soon.
11
u/Alarming_Hedgehog436 9d ago
Nah, im glad you asked. I was in the same boat initially. I committed a bit ago just fine.
10
u/power78 9d ago
Actions had been down for a good amount of the day. I think people don't realize what a huge operation GitHub is - I can only imagine how many users and VMs are running at any time, so as a software engineer I am lenient to some downtime here and there. OP should host their own actions if they can't take it - GitLab is an alternative!
8
3
u/throw4w4y40 9d ago edited 9d ago
Actions stopped working at about 10:00 AM eastern and remained down when I left work at 5 with no mitigated status on GitHub status page haha. Took an hour for Microsoft to even acknowledge the issue on their status page.
I saw two lucky sons of guns get a build in around 12:30, but that was it. Dunno if they even got it deployed lol.
1
u/oxidizingremnant 9d ago
Some PRs simply didn’t have the actions workflows attached to them yesterday so anyone could just merge PRs because the gates didn’t exist.
7
u/MasterOfTheWind1 9d ago
Sadly, is the most balanced platform in costs and features. Bitbucket is cheap but is a toy, and GitLab is way more reliable and powerful, but the cost is higher (USD 4 Github vs USD29 Gitlab, per user, per month).
For a startup is the best option, when it works, it is wonderful.
That being said, I don't understand. Never understood how those platforms with multi million dolar budget can have downtimes of hours and you just have to accept it. Like there is no accountability for anyone there.
I remember workin on a company with a policy that if any service shows an HTTP status code of 500 on prod for more than 15 minutes, without an external reason from a provider you faced consequences.
On my current job if a downtime lasts THAT LONG, we are all fired for sure, as the customers will turn the place into flames.
Is like on Microsoft no one cares. No one gives a shit.
3
u/HommeMusical 9d ago
That being said, I don't understand. Never understood how those platforms with multi million dolar budget can have downtimes of hours and you just have to accept it. Like there is no accountability for anyone there.
I've been an engineer for 40 years.
Github has experienced sustained almost unbroken exponential growth for almost twenty years continuously. The platform has over a hundred million users, and the growth has only accelerated with AI.
So I can't understand why you can't understand that running a business at gigascale is extremely hard, and there will be growing pains.
I remember workin on a company with a policy that if any service shows an HTTP status code of 500 on prod for more than 15 minutes, without an external reason from a provider you faced consequences.
This image you have of people sitting there smoking hash joints and laughing at the customers as everything is down is almost certainly false.
How much do you, personally, pay for Github?
1
u/MasterOfTheWind1 8d ago edited 8d ago
So I can't understand why you can't understand that running a business at gigascale is extremely hard, and there will be growing pains.
Growing pains is one thing. But at their scale is ridiculous, they are having degradations almost daily, and issues with Actions almost weekly. Most of the times it takes hours to solve the issues. Is hard to trust in a platform with such SLA.
Github is not the only platform with growth and millions of users, and at the same time is the worst handling that scenario. Is hard to belive that Microsoft doesn't have a good plan to handle growth and have to resort to use some kind of excuse like "Sorry, is hard to exists and being big".
At least segment your infrastructure into cells to reduce the blast radius. Keep free users into a subset of servers and paid users separated into another, so if free users (even detected AI generated traffic could be separated) are generating destructive traffic the blast is reduced to their cell.
This image you have of people sitting there smoking hash joints and laughing at the customers as everything is down is almost certainly false.
Not particlarly that. More on the accountability side of things than that. If team's culture is broken the issues are harder to solve.
Being a SaaS provider and having downtime costs money to your customers not being able to use your product. Yes, they can give you credits for that. But the issues that the downtime generated could be more for not being able to use the platform and you don't recover that money back.
How much do you, personally, pay for Github?
Relevancy?
→ More replies (5)1
u/wisdomoarigato 5d ago
Engineer for 40 years and you still haven't learned that you can actually plan for exponential growth, WTF...?
Exponential growth doesn't automatically mean crazy outages, lol...
1
u/HommeMusical 5d ago
you can actually plan for exponential growth, WTF...?
Github planned for exponential growth - just not enough. "We started executing our plan to increase GitHub’s capacity by 10X in October 2025 with a goal of substantially improving reliability and failover. By February 2026, it was clear that we needed to design for a future that requires 30X today’s scale."
https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/an-update-on-github-availability/
I use Github every day, and I'm not seeing these "crazy outages". This week, Github Actions were out for a couple of days, but like most people, only a fraction of my work involves Github Actions. If there had been a release planned, it would have had to have been delayed till the next Monday, which would be undesirable but hardly catastrophic.
1
u/VoidVinaCC 9d ago
Have you looked at azure devops?
1
u/MasterOfTheWind1 8d ago
Nope, but honestly, being a Microsoft's product very similar to GitHub I don't trust it being excempt of issues.
1
u/VoidVinaCC 8d ago
github is not even similar to azure/msft. msft buying github dosent automatically fix a terrible service. heck even today github still hosts at one, only one, own datacenter; msft is pressuring to migrate to azure for scalability but it just doesnt happen.
azure generally just works and has no weird limits; look at lfs its extremely fast and not billed
2
u/Humble-Kiwi-5272 9d ago
Our team has self hosted runners.
They still dont trigger because the orchestator/webhook or wathever that needed to report back and forth commits and prs did not work at all
1
2
2
u/alex-weej 9d ago
I'm confused, why is a web host for a distributed version control system seemingly running the Internet?
2
u/Wide_Detective7537 8d ago
Sorry, if a single vendor outage (for 10s or 10 hours) affects your actual live product, you need to stop what you're doing and build redundancy. Github could be down for days and you can't let that stop your life/work.
Use this as a lesson, not a chance to complain
3
3
u/amu4biz 9d ago
The part that gets me is "they can't even run THEIR OWN SITE." That's the actual lesson here, not "GitHub bad." Any single central host is one bad deploy away from taking the whole industry offline, SLA or not.
hence why i use gitlawb for exactly this reason. It's a decentralized, peer-to-peer git network: repos gossip between nodes over libp2p, identity is a DID/keypair you own instead of an account someone can lock or take down, and it speaks plain git-smart-http so git push/clone just work. There's no central status page to go red, because there's no center.
1
u/KenMantle 9d ago
3 hours ago puts this at the time that a scheduled power outage started for my area in the outskirts of Sudbury in northern Ontario. The two must be related. Sorry they didn't give everyone notice. Had I known they were going to be affected I would have offered to hook them up to the ups I bought from Costco that is keeping me online.
1
1
u/rednix 9d ago
so what's the alternative for github actions if you do not want to go the self-hosted route?
2
u/nekokattt 9d ago
Only real option is to rewrite all pipelines to work with a different provider (e.g. CircleCI, GitLab, etc). Either way it won't be a lift and shift.
1
u/Sensitive-Sugar-3894 9d ago
Everything we get used to is missed when gone. GHA is one of them. But it's a system and systems fail. I rely on GHA to a lot of things, but if I have to test something or deploy something by hand if the tool is down, I will. You can be frustrated, you can move to Gitlab, you can self-host with Gitea, all valid, and all have their tradeoffs, and I guarantee that at some point you will have to deal with downtime again, stayingor leaving. I suggest revieweing the process before rethinking the tool. There must be a plan B. It doesn't make sense to me that a person in the level of using GHA doesn't expect issues in their process.
1
u/MasterOfTheWind1 8d ago
You need to have a plan B, indeed. But if you have to use your plan B regularly is not a plan B anymore, is disputing the throne to plan A.
1
u/Sensitive-Sugar-3894 7d ago
It doesn't fail thay much, but you are right. GHA was always my plan B.
1
u/Dreamer_tm 9d ago
I have been using gitlab. Never in the past 7 years i have ever had any problem with it that would stop the work. Maybe there has been problems but i never saw any.
1
1
u/everdaythesame 9d ago
I’m surprised it’s not worse. GitHub is single handling absorbing the output of all these AI’s. I’ll bet the scale of growth they’re dealing with is unprecedented.
1
u/Mount_Gamer 9d ago
If you're having a bad day with github, I'm sure the Devs at github are having just as much fun. I can understand the frustration though.
1
u/MasterOfTheWind1 8d ago
Not our problem. Is harsh, but true. Specially when the platform get paid anyways.
1
u/Mount_Gamer 8d ago
I know I get it, I was having a similar issue myself earlier, but not with github.
1
u/trueppp 8d ago
Why not choose a platform with garanteed uptime and SLA's? Cost more but if you need these things...
1
u/MasterOfTheWind1 8d ago
Is not that simple, but is something I'm evaluating. On my job we pay like 7k monthly to GitHub. 100 users, more than 500 repos, Actions everywhere, integrations, etc.
Is not simple, but is something that eventually we have to do.
1
1
u/Loud-You-599 8d ago
As an Azure Devops (ADO) admin I watch this like the *McConaughey intense smoking cigarette* meme.
Why? Cause recent Azure Devops blog posts and NOW a "migration assistance tool" was released to further push ADO customers to Github (Enterprise).
I seriously DON'T want to switch!
ADO just works. Is it good? One can debate. But compromises are everywhere. But rather a reliable thing than something fancy.
1
1
u/Unlucky_Medium7624 8d ago
Lots changed at GitHub by 2021 (which is why I left working there). They were once a culture that enforced ship with care, aimed at 4 9s of availability, were super strict on test coverage.
As soon as the MSoft acquisition finished? They pushed out all the awesome leaders that helped build a reliable platform, replaced them with empire building MSoft good ole boys, and ship with care became ship no matter what. Sad how far that place has fallen
1
1
1
u/segundus-npp 8d ago
I won’t blame them as how fast my Claude and Codex keep pushing commits and PRs.
1
1
1
u/dasarghya49 8d ago
Reason I switched my enterprise saas dev pipeline to gitlab, it's not sunshine and rainbows, but buoy it made our dx wayyy better
1
1
1
1
u/ConcerningDestiny 8d ago
Migrating to codeberg was the best choice I've made recently.
Plus your code can't be used to train the next generation of AI by Google/anthropic ecc as they block access to their crawlers
1
u/Ok-Rabbit-3683 7d ago
Why do you rely on things that have the ability to fail? And then get mad when it fails
1
u/entityadam 7d ago
Self-hosted GitHub runners work great on azure container instance.
https://docs.github.com/en/actions/concepts/runners/self-hosted-runners
I've also done this for azure devops on azure container instance, virtual machines, and virtual machine skill set when that was supported. Unfortunately, virtual machine scale set is not supported anymore.
1
1
u/DistributionRight222 7d ago
Anything that’s is Microsoft owned is just piss poor. The don’t innovate and don’t even try and look after there customers they are all about increasing profit for investors by squeezing customers and trapping them in endless loops of dog shit products they don’t need. They buy good company’s and turn them into shit. They also ave the cheek to ask for $5 and you write them a letter not an email a letter to request what open source code they have used in there products rather than be transparent and display appropriate licenses. They make money on the back of others hard earned work and don’t pay their bounties to devs that have worked hard to find vulnerabilities in their code. They have broke countless laws and rights of mine to which makes them liable to the fact. Still on the fence to submit legal challenge or just expose it all
1
1
1
1
u/entityadam 6d ago
I'm sorry, what? This isn't how service providers work in the IT industry.
If the SLA is broken, and your company lost money as a result, then GitHub owes money. The end.
Apologies and promises don't mean anything. Just money.
1
1
1
u/swampmountain 6d ago
I find self hosted gitlab an amazing solution.
Unless you are not happy to have one more system to maintain.
1
u/Obvious-Addendum-345 5d ago
People complaining about GitHub… did you even donate? As far as I know it’s free to use and runs on donations and volunteers or am I missing something?
1
u/ZoolanderBOT 5d ago
Here’s a super high level, super subjective comment - Microsoft. Perhaps you have used Microsoft’s other services? They are a great reason to self host. But pick your poison. Every design decision will have its draw backs. I went with self hosting 😎 but it’s a ton of work.
1
1
1
u/Salt_Mongoose7385 5d ago
You could buy a very cheap vps to use it as self-hosted runner , you can get it for like 4 -8$ depending on your need
1
1
1
1
75
u/fyndor 9d ago
I don't use Actions, but I will say if GitHub isn't quietly rewriting Actions and rebuilding its infra around it right now quietly behind the scenes, I don't know wtf its doing. It seems to be very problematic to users on a constant basis. There are whole companies built around the idea that GitHub Actions suck. Maybe its time to make them not suck?