Re: GitHub reliability

Am 11.05.26 um 04:18 schrieb Klemens Morgenstern via Boost:
> I think the first attempt should be to spin up a mirror of either Forgejo
> and/or Gitea
> and see how it works.
> And then we set a date, at which we disable issues and PRs on Github
> and use github as a pure (and automated) mirror.
>
>
>> If for example we want to transfer the open issues then we should start
>> collecting them now, because of rate limits (it could take weeks or months
>> to collect all the data which is not stored in the repo).
>>
> Both have an "import from github" function, that allows you to import a
> full project.
> This is probably a good default, unless a maintainer wants to do it another
> way (e.g. only transfer certains issues).

TBH: Not really keen on that.
I'm aware of the sunken costs fallacy but there IS a lot of effort in 
and around GitHub that we would/might loose.
That includes experience of us and users on how to do things there and 
how to handle issues difficulties.
E.g. Boost.CI and the "reusable" workflow introduced by Jim last year 
helps to have up to date configurations for lot's of Boost libraries,
especially those where CI is/was rooting away as maintainers were either 
not that active anymore or simply didn't want to keep track of the 
changes required for very new or old configurations.
Drone is only part way on that state where a new compiler can be tested 
and added to dozens of libraries in a single commit to a central repository.

So far my work on GitHub wasn't affected to an extent I'd even notice much.
Especially with Boost we are not that highly active that even a day 
outage would be catastrophic. I'd put it as "mildly annoying" instead.

And the article shared by Vinnie [1] sounds like there is some hope:

> GitHub. It is critical global infrastructure, and it is struggling 
> under the weight of millions (if not billions) of AI agents spewing 
> out code.

> GitHub’s stated priorities are now availability first, capacity 
> second, new features third. That’s the right order,

So IMO this is a temporary struggle with the changing landscape of 
software development and MS at least seems to be aware and dedicated to 
handle that.

So I would wait for this to calm down again but keep stuff like this in 
mind.
If anyone has the time to test alternatives on what is viable if it 
comes to that, it would certainly be good to know.
Especially how well issues and references to PRs, commits and other 
issues are kept as that proved to be useful in multiple occasions to me.
But I wouldn't want to do the switch, at least not now.

- Alex

[1] https://leaddev.com/software-quality/whats-gone-wrong-at-github

_______________________________________________
Boost mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman3/lists/boost.lists.boost.org/
Archived at: https://lists.boost.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/XLH3UJ65KVKARUAQFCSFAPOUTLXYN4JI/