Yes, it's down again
-
GitHub actions is crazy convenient, but it's a huge pain to run a copy locally. I try not to depend on it too much, but sometimes it is simplest to just go refill my coffee while it figures itself out.
(And it's almost never down. This week was unusual, to me.)
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I still use github for personal projects but have never looked into what the Actions do, since github serves my minimal needs as-is. But it also did when I was working. I would think if people find that depending on certain features ultimately disrupts their work, the smart thing would be not to use those features.
-
I still use github for personal projects but have never looked into what the Actions do, since github serves my minimal needs as-is. But it also did when I was working. I would think if people find that depending on certain features ultimately disrupts their work, the smart thing would be not to use those features.
I would think if people find that depending on certain features ultimately disrupts their work, the smart thing would be not to use those features.
Yes. That would be wiser. But it would also mean setting up a Jenkins server.
-
I would think if people find that depending on certain features ultimately disrupts their work, the smart thing would be not to use those features.
Yes. That would be wiser. But it would also mean setting up a Jenkins server.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]No problem. Jenkiins! Get your ass in here!
-
I'll be honest. I just enjoy seeing my auto updater script work whenever I push to main and the Web page updates itself. FEELS SO GOOD TO JUST DO A PUSH AND HAVE YOUR CHANGES UP IN 3 MINS.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Well yeah!
That's the CD part
We're rolling the same thing, except with all our cloud infrastructure, our code, and various integrations.
Automatic deployments are so great, as long as you trust your integration process and test suites.
-
I'm talking about in a professional environment. You basically need a team to manage them and have a backlog of updates and fixes and requests from multiple dev teams. If you offload that to something cloud based that pretty much evaporates, apart from providing some shared workflows. And it's just generally a better experience as a dev team, at least in my experience it has been.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Honestly, no, you don't need a team. It is good practice, but not necessary. I've worked at several companies where the production build was made from a tower under a desk or a server blade, or an iMac on a shelf, sometimes one guy knew how it worked, sometimes nobody did, sometimes the whole team did. In most cases, managed by the product's dev team. IT just firewall-wrapped the crap out of them.
Not to discredit the main meta thread of "we don't have to manage anything with cloud" vs "having management team" debate. Odd thing is, cloud prices are climbing so rapidly that the industry could shift back in a near future.
Bottom line for most business though: As long as the cost makes sense, why bother self-hosting anything. That's really what it comes down to. A bonus too, as most companies like being able to blame other companies for their problems. Microsoft knows that, and profited greatly with Windows Server/Office/etc. for that very reason.
When your quarterly profits are dashed because an employee backed into your server room and turned on the halon fire suppression system and you gotta rebuild from scratch from month-old off-site tape backups, how do you write a puff piece to explain that away without self-blame or firing the very people that know how it all works?
When your quarterly profits are dashed because Microsoft's source control system screwed up, you make a polite public "our upstream software partners had a technical error, we've addressed and renegotiated," message, shareholders are happy, and customers are still stuck with a broken product, but the shareholders are happy.
-
Edit: seems like they fixed it, it works for me
My general contribution to the conversation is GitHub should have a donation system. Once a week, some kind of donation raffle happens, and the winner gets GitHub taken down for "reasons" for 4 hours, then 5, 6, 8. Microsoft profits more, and it slowly becomes a technology-and-money-induced vacation day.
-
Maybe what I misunderstood is where git ends and github starts. I know there are other hosting platforms, and I've used a lot of git visualizers. But what I've never tried to do is use git with multiple developers without connecting to some 3rd party server. Is there some peer to peer functionality built into git or did I totally misunderstand your original comment? Or are you literally sharing the git folder via network file system, thumb drive, etc?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Yes the original use case is sending patches back and forth on the Linux kernel mailing list
-
Honestly, no, you don't need a team. It is good practice, but not necessary. I've worked at several companies where the production build was made from a tower under a desk or a server blade, or an iMac on a shelf, sometimes one guy knew how it worked, sometimes nobody did, sometimes the whole team did. In most cases, managed by the product's dev team. IT just firewall-wrapped the crap out of them.
Not to discredit the main meta thread of "we don't have to manage anything with cloud" vs "having management team" debate. Odd thing is, cloud prices are climbing so rapidly that the industry could shift back in a near future.
Bottom line for most business though: As long as the cost makes sense, why bother self-hosting anything. That's really what it comes down to. A bonus too, as most companies like being able to blame other companies for their problems. Microsoft knows that, and profited greatly with Windows Server/Office/etc. for that very reason.
When your quarterly profits are dashed because an employee backed into your server room and turned on the halon fire suppression system and you gotta rebuild from scratch from month-old off-site tape backups, how do you write a puff piece to explain that away without self-blame or firing the very people that know how it all works?
When your quarterly profits are dashed because Microsoft's source control system screwed up, you make a polite public "our upstream software partners had a technical error, we've addressed and renegotiated," message, shareholders are happy, and customers are still stuck with a broken product, but the shareholders are happy.
Well yeah strictly you don't, but the idea of having a single machine under someone's desk as a build server managed by one person where you have multiple dev teams fills me with horror! If that one person is off and the build server is down you're potentially dead in the water for a long time. Fine for small businesses that only have a handful of devs but problematic where you've multiple teams.
Bottom line for most business though: As long as the cost makes sense, why bother self-hosting anything. That's really what it comes down to. A bonus too, as most companies like being able to blame other companies for their problems. Microsoft knows that, and profited greatly with Windows Server/Office/etc. for that very reason.
Yup, exactly this. Why waste resources internally when you can free up your own resources to do more productive work. There's also going to be some kind of SLA on an enterprise plan where you can get compensation if there's a service outage that lasts a long time. Can't really do that if it's self managed.
-
My general contribution to the conversation is GitHub should have a donation system. Once a week, some kind of donation raffle happens, and the winner gets GitHub taken down for "reasons" for 4 hours, then 5, 6, 8. Microsoft profits more, and it slowly becomes a technology-and-money-induced vacation day.
Or and I know this sounds crazy, we (I actually mean you) collectively agree on laws that gives everyone a couple of paid vacation weeks a year.
-
Well yeah strictly you don't, but the idea of having a single machine under someone's desk as a build server managed by one person where you have multiple dev teams fills me with horror! If that one person is off and the build server is down you're potentially dead in the water for a long time. Fine for small businesses that only have a handful of devs but problematic where you've multiple teams.
Bottom line for most business though: As long as the cost makes sense, why bother self-hosting anything. That's really what it comes down to. A bonus too, as most companies like being able to blame other companies for their problems. Microsoft knows that, and profited greatly with Windows Server/Office/etc. for that very reason.
Yup, exactly this. Why waste resources internally when you can free up your own resources to do more productive work. There's also going to be some kind of SLA on an enterprise plan where you can get compensation if there's a service outage that lasts a long time. Can't really do that if it's self managed.
Oh, the stories I could tell you... I should write a book some day.
