

Github makes Europe lose half a day of work. - informatimago

https:&#x2F;&#x2F;status.github.com&#x2F;messages<p>Mitigation or not, in Europe we couldn&#x27;t work for half a day (is off-line work still work?).<p>SAAS is bad, host your own services on your own computers!
http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gnu.org&#x2F;philosophy&#x2F;who-does-that-server-really-serve.html
======
sejje
Push to production? Take three seconds to set up a bitbucket repo and work
from that for half the day?

Basic problem solving would have caused you to lose about 5 minutes of work
instead.

------
alt_f4
The whole point of git is that it is distributed. There should be no critical
dependency on any one hosting service.

------
tlongren
Something really wrong if you can't work just because Github is inaccessible.

~~~
AznHisoka
Ha I know..

"Hey boss, I can't work because it's building!" "OK, It's done building.. but
I can't work because Github is down"! "Ok Github is back up... but I can't
work because StackOverflow is down!" "Ok StackOverflow is back up.. but it's 5
PM and I only get paid to work 9 to 5!"

------
memracom
If Github is down, pull directly from each other's git repos. Works just fine.
You may need to temporarily change build scripts, but better would be to have
a local repo server that the build scripts pull from. In normal circumstances
that local repo would just pull from Github, but when it is down you push
changes to it instead.

------
informatimago
1- if other members of the team commited yesterday, and I can't pull in the
morning, at least it's inconvenient, and at most it's blocking.

2- what good would that do to me to be able to create a new repo, from my
outdated local copy, when the other member is not available in the morning to
push his latest commits?

3- yes we could systematically push to several repos to reduce the risk. But
if the boss was conscious of that risk, we would just avoid it entirely by
having our repos on our own servers instead.

