There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

tux0r ,
@tux0r@feddit.org avatar

I love how the same people who try to drag me towards using Git are the only people who seem to have serious problems working on their code when a website goes down.

SmoochyPit ,

Which VCS do you use?

tux0r ,
@tux0r@feddit.org avatar

Fossil, mostly, with some Darcs and SCCS thrown in the mix. Some of my older stuff still resides on SVN (and is perfectly reachable right now).

I think I only have one project on GitHub that’s not only a mirror. This incident reminds me that this was meant to be a temporary solution.

Aatube ,

I took a look at the Fossil website and still don't get this: how do remotes work, and how would Fossil's version of remotes prevent the main server outage from stopping global VCS collaboration? I'm sure there's a good answer but I can't find it from the website.

ricecake ,

Why?

How does fossil or svn protect you from a remote server going down making it’s contents unavailable?

Are those advantages worth others not knowing how, or caring to bother, to access or contribute to your software?

What are you gaining by eschewing what is effectively the standard tool?

someacnt_ ,

How do you even know darcs

running_ragged ,

Using git (or equivalent) is pretty important. Using github is pretty optional.

tux0r ,
@tux0r@feddit.org avatar

It doesn’t look so optional to me if I read the tearful reactions on social media correctly. Apparently, an overwhelming majority of Git users ‘can’t work’ when GitHub is down.

Die4Ever , (edited )
@Die4Ever@programming.dev avatar

Eh you still can, the git remote is a mirror but you can still make commits locally and sync later

you can also have multiple git remotes/mirrors

tux0r ,
@tux0r@feddit.org avatar

Then what’s with all these devastated comments on social media?

Die4Ever ,
@Die4Ever@programming.dev avatar

people like to make a fuss and get attention on social media, it’s something to talk about, entertainment

they’re weren’t even down for that long

ricecake ,

There’s a difference between “can’t code” and “can’t work”.

A lot of people use git for version control: super good idea, basically anything else is at best unorthodox, at worst bizarrely stupid.
A lot of people also use github for repository hosting, continuous integration, code review, deployment, packaging, etc, etc. this is more of an opinion thing than a standard practice thing, and there are plenty of other ways to get the same tools, either all in one package or from a variety of different ones, self hosted, in the cloud, or some hybrid in between.

If GitHub goes down, you can make code changes and everything to your hearts content. But you might not be able to run your full integration testing pipeline on it, get a code review, or package your software.

If your local build process pulls packages from GitHub or refreshes a remote repository automatically, it can also powerfully mess that up, but that’s nothing to do with git. You can use “ctrl-c/v” backups and still have a build process that tips over when GitHub goes down.

tux0r ,
@tux0r@feddit.org avatar

Under which circumstances would using any VCS that isn’t Git be “bizarrely stupid” and why? I mean, everyone has strong opinions about something, but I’m curious now.

ricecake ,

File1, file2, file_3.new, etc would be bizarrely stupid. A home rolled solution involving rsync, tar, gzip, crons or inotify would also be bizarrely stupid.

en.wikipedia.org/…/List_of_version-control_softwa… anything on that list that’s marked anything other than “active” as a more serious answer. So like DCVS, visual source safe, or bitkeeper. Anything that’s not getting bug fixes or maintenance.

Anything that doesn’t have significant enough usage to give confidence that bugs or glitches are being caught by common usage would be risky, since you don’t want to be the person to find that edge case.

There’s things other than git that aren’t wrong, but I see little compelling reason not to use the most ubiquitous tool.

subignition ,
@subignition@fedia.io avatar

You're trolling at this point, right? You have a Boxxy profile picture and yet you're confused about the dynamics of social media?

todd_bonzalez ,
@todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee avatar

It’s still optional, they just chose poorly.

tux0r ,
@tux0r@feddit.org avatar

Here’s hope they’ll learn from this.

running_ragged ,

It’s relatively easy to self host your own git repositories.

It’s just that Github adds a lot of extra value added features that help streamline things for larger projects, and this is why many people use it. For most people, the value they get far outweighs the inconvenience when it goes down for 10 minutes here or there.

folekaule ,

Git is a distributed VCS just like fossil. GitHub never has been an integral part of it; it’s just the most popular hosting option. This is like saying you’re glad you’re using Firefox because everyone complaining that Twitter is down is using Chrome.

Even if you do just GitHub for hosting you can, on account of it being distributed, still work and commit code.

What is more disruptive is that so much code is hosted on GitHub that even if you’re not yourself hosting anything there, you risk almost all your dependencies being unavailable to your build pipelines. If you didn’t have a cache set up, you’re gonna have a bad time.

Too much of their process it’s tied in with GitHub. That’s what people are complaining about.

db2 ,

It was down a whole 36 minutes. 🙄 I’ll worry when a Clownstrike level event happens, this is nothing.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •