Github makes Europe lose half a day of work.

[informatimago]

https://status.github.com/messages

Mitigation or not, in Europe we couldn't work for half a day (is off-line work still work?).

SAAS is bad, host your own services on your own computers! http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/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 → tlongren]

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2- what good would that do to me to be able to create a new repo, from my outdated local copy, when the other member is not available in the morning to push his latest commits?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