GitHub: We're sorry (again) about (another) outage GitHub has issued a mea culpa for the latest outage that left users unable to access the code-sharing site. The company said that a power outage was to blame for Thursday's downtime. The issue did not go unnoticed. Yikes. GitHub is down. Since my boss doesn't understand git, this is a clear opportunity to play Xbox. I mean, " …
Git is a distributed SCC system? Isn't the whole point? One can hack away at one's code, committing revisions and then catchup when (or if) ever a central server comes back. If it doesn't, or just if needs be, then your repository can be pulled directly by co-workers. Try git send-email.
Go look how git is used for the thing that it was written for: the Linux Kernel. Or alternatively RTFM.
Git is not CVS nor is it Subversion.
Github going away for a few hours or even days is not the end of the world.
The problem is that tools such as Composer, Bundle, Pip, Bower etc can all be hooked in to use github repositories and developers / DevOps somehow think it is acceptable to have these things "built on deployment" only to realise that if that service doesnt exist many of these tools dont handle that failure well and you end up with a broken deployment.
CI would prevent this in most cases but I have seen just as many poorly implemented CI systems as I have crappy deployment mechanisms, PEBCAC.
Agreed, stuff that's "built on deployment" can be a real pain in the neck.
The ability to work completely offline is one of the main advantages of tools like git for folks like me.
There's also an unfortunate trend to require constant internet access for product documentation. I've got acres of disk space on multiple devices here, making it crazy to insist I'm online all the time.
Actually Git can still do full history-preserving merges even if all you have is e-mail (or sending USB sticks by pigeon carrier). You may read up on git "bundles".
Good luck trying that with SVN.
Github is much more than just Git, though. Otherwise they wouldn't have much of a business.
<blockquote>
Git is not CVS nor is it Subversion.
</blockquote>
I agree, but a lot of developers don't understand this, particularly if they came into work one morning and their team lead goes, "oh, btw, we migrated from SVN to git over the weekend". That is, they replace the old centralised VCS product but retain a centralised workflow. There is a tendency, I think, to do git migrations because it is fashionable or because of some perceived benefit ("OMG, we can branch now!") without really investigating the benefits that a distributed VCS will give you. I would not call myself a git expert by any stretch but I only really began to grok it when I stopped looking at it through the "lens" of a centralised VCS model.
If you can plausibly blame non-productivity on an event outside of your control, play up how critical the tool/service is to your work, and then goof off until it's back up.
If your boss sucks, they'll buy the story, and you won't feel too guilty about selling them a line of hooey.
This post has been deleted by its author
*"...If you can plausibly blame non-productivity on an event outside of your control, play up how critical the tool/service is to your work, and then goof off until it's back up..."*
.. which presumably, for a lot of modern journalists, means a day off next time Twitter goes down.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
