Why can’t GibHub be reliable?
It seems like GitHub is getting worse every quarter. Why can’t they operate it in a reliable way?
4 comments
Good question.
Given that 100M+ users are able to run GitHub Actions (GA) for free, reliability is already out of the window and GitHub has objectively gotten worse in that since they got acquired by Microsoft and introduced GA.
Given that 100M+ users are able to run GitHub Actions (GA) for free, reliability is already out of the window and GitHub has objectively gotten worse in that since they got acquired by Microsoft and introduced GA.
Do you think they'll get rid of GA for free, or massively reduce the minutes available in the free tier?
Advanced CI and being able to bring your own runner is a well supported option (thanks to GitLab for pioneering the way and staying a competitor this whole time), maybe at some point it will be reasonable to push that option aggressively for developers that can't afford to pay.
Advanced CI and being able to bring your own runner is a well supported option (thanks to GitLab for pioneering the way and staying a competitor this whole time), maybe at some point it will be reasonable to push that option aggressively for developers that can't afford to pay.
Because it's not that easy and it costs money which they are likely no willing to spend. Also Microsoft took it over ~5 years ago an I guess we'll see the results of the different management style here.
Github's SLA is only for 3 9s of availability. For enterprises there is likely much more visibility for applications who's downtime had direct impact to revenue. If a system that processes orders or claims or shipments go down there is a direct line to $$$ lost. If Github goes down the impact isn't the same.