I was just saying it's kind of ironic that pre-acquisition GitHub inspired confidence, and Microsoft-owned GitHub has been more "move fast and break things."
I also don't just mean outages like this... it's clear that Microsoft GitHub has been cramming a bunch of new stuff into the UI and not really treating it with care. I notice very amateur UI bugs, misalignment, bad spacing, overlapping elements, etc. all the time now. It was clear that old GitHub passed through a professional designer's eye quite carefully (or maybe just a developer with extreme attention to detail).
> notice very amateur UI bugs, misalignment, bad spacing, overlapping elements, etc. all the time now.
Seriously. Example: the "merge pull requests" button. If your repository requires linear history and the current type of merge is unavailable, the entire UI element turns grey instead of green. It looks like you can't use the button at all, but the dropdown arrow still works to select a valid type of merge (which then turns the entire element green).
It's a small thing, but it causes confusion by making it appear that the change cannot be merged, and it makes you wonder how much testing they do.
These little things keep piling up as they focus on shiny new features which rarely work correctly at launch (looking at you, code search...)
Please, GH product managers. Take a break from breakneck new features, and give your devs time to clean up and do some preventative maintenance.
My understanding is they were peer to peer originally, and after Microsoft they got rid of that and made it more centralized. I could be misremembering though.
The mobile UI is just lacking all around. There are a ton of features that just don't seem to exist. Searching inside a repository? Nope. Browse files of a given commit? No chance. There's a bunch more, but both of those bother me very frequently.
That's kind of how Microsoft works in general. Their products expand to have as many features as they can cram in. Word and Excel are probably the quintessential examples, where only a tiny fraction of users care about a feature, but they are passionate about it.
> I notice very amateur UI bugs, misalignment, bad spacing, overlapping elements, etc. all the time now.
+1
The inconsistencies aren't deal breakers - github still has a very pleasant UI overall - but they do makethe website feel more and more unpolished each day
BTW: There is work in progress to decentralize modern git based workflows by https://nlnet.nl/project/ForgeFed/ (paid for by the European Union), by decentralizing git not at the client level (which it obv. already has, but most people only use one origin), but also on the code forge level.
git itself is not enough for teams to work together - you need to asynchronously communicate for the whole thing to come together. Thats what GitHub/Lab/ea bring in value.
Someone should write a local git+ssh service (+ email client) that simulates an upstream by hosting git repos locally, emailing all pushed commits/branches/tags to other team members, and keeping the hosted repos up-to-date via the emailed updates from others.
Bonus points for a local HTTP service that provides an optional GitHub-like experience in the browser, with comments/ branch reviews/etc. federated through emailed messages (and represented as commits on meta-repos).
With that data model, the primary remaining challenge would be setting up repos on a new machine -- perhaps BitTorrent could help :)
I feel like "communication" isn't descriptive enough. It's right, but eg Slack (or Microsoft Teams, or maybe both) isn't the right shape of communication.
DNS and git are decentralized; anyone can set up a node
Human agency tends to normalize on the brands with biggest marketing budget who collude with politicians to create a moat for themselves. There’s your real problem.
Of course none of the propaganda research that made its way from military after world wars to corporate advertising and marketing college programs has any influence on lizard brains. No sir.*
The joke is that Git is decentralized already. Many people pick a single master host, but it's absolutely possible to use multiple servers (or to use Git over email, like the Linux kernel does).
No, in general almost never in tech, only rarely and when unionized or when protected by contract or labor law. And we're not talking about seasonal jobs (logging, fishing) either. And we're not talking about unforeseen circumstances/force majeure like in 2020/1.
"RIF" is US jargon; you can see that ~0% of worldwide Google usage outside of North America for "RIF" is "reduction in force" [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%201-d&q=%2...]. A tiny amount (<<2%) of usage in UK, Scandinavia, Poland, Australia (possibly mainly from US multinationals).
There is zero reason to adopt managementspeak jargon, or its 2022 neologisms "impacted"/"affected"/"displaced". Just say "layoff" (n) / "laid off" (v), already.
In the very unlikely event [in tech] you actually needed to say "temporary layoff", you can easily say "temporary layoff".
The language was working fine for decades and there's no reason to pander to management euphemisms. It harms clarity.
Eventually it will be the same everywhere but for sake of economy (stakeholders), staff and customers pay the price, always. By time they find the bottleneck they will be hiring as crazy then.
Fully agree. I've been super impressed with the number of new features since the MS acquisition, but the number of outages is getting abysmal. At the very least I think GitHub would attempt to shard their infrastructure and repositories - right now it seems like when GitHub goes down it nearly always goes down for everyone simultaneously.
This kind of GH outage is actually pretty rare in my experience in that basically every kind of write operation looks down.: basic git operations from the command line, actions, logins, etc.
I think it is quite individual. I am not impressed by any of the newer features. The UI become more cumbersome to use. I sometimes need to search for things now, while I don't see any new advantages compared to before.
Spoke to Gitlab rep today about our renewal price (prices going up by 50%+, 25% with "existing customer discount) and the rep used reliability as a key differentiator against GitHub.
I quickly pointed about a major outage affecting Gitlabs shared runners which prevented us from deploying a hot fix (we worked around it, but was a ton of stress and extra work).
Again? Last time this happened was 5 days ago. [0]
It is not even the end of the month and the outages are increasing every month and it is now chronically unreliable. Seriously, we have given GitHub more than 3 years to improve and it clearly isn't working. That is plenty of time.
At this point, you might as well self-host like the rest of the open source projects out there, since GitHub is falling apart every week and it seems to be more reliable to self-host than to sit on GitHub, go all in and tolerate these outages every calendar month.
I mean one of the beauty parts of git has always been that you can and, under ideal best practices, should have more than one place to put your code with the distributed nature of it
But also, and more relevantly here, git is designed to be usable entirely offline. And if you do need to have some connection with remotes, git allows you to do so extremely sporadically if your network connectivity, or remote availability, is limited.
I dunno about "should", that feels like overkill. Expecting to get something like a 99.99% SLA shouldn't be unreasonable to expect out of a hosted solution
Like in the movie Wargames it's a trick. They will say the humans can't run a site like GitHub so put it all in the hands of the AI. Then the AI will have full control of GitHub...
I assume most people don't even pay for it with their public and private non-work repos. Github has been a major supporter of OpenSource projects and while their uptime could use some help, everyone is struggling right now with RIFs and fewer resources.
We don't owe GitHub anything. They put themselves in this situation. They burned capital to become the defacto source code hosting site then rug-pulled on reliability. They deserve more criticism, not less.
I also don't just mean outages like this... it's clear that Microsoft GitHub has been cramming a bunch of new stuff into the UI and not really treating it with care. I notice very amateur UI bugs, misalignment, bad spacing, overlapping elements, etc. all the time now. It was clear that old GitHub passed through a professional designer's eye quite carefully (or maybe just a developer with extreme attention to detail).