I thought it was pretty serious. Github is no longer a tiny company and when so many people rely on you for everything a 5 min outage becomes significant. E.g. I was not able to deploy to my server a few mins ago due to this outage. This makes me question the decision to use github going forward.
What value does it add to HN to have outages like this reported? As far as I can see, and as I said elsewhere, if you're affected you'll already know, and if you're not affected it won't matter.
I concede that it was important to you, as no doubt it was important to many. The question is, why should it be posted to HN? There might be value in a longer post with real analysis of outage statistics and patterns, but this isn't it.
I don't think the point is to merely be aware of the outage (as most who rely on github so heavily would most likely already have checks in place to notify them), but rather start a conversation, no matter how un-actionable, on whether the next guy should be using github.
There is a local git repo for local env. But I don't see why it's wrong to use git to deploy to staging/prod using different branches. Surely there is a more perfect solution but who said anything had to be perfect, we're hackers.
This is where people go wrong. Why throw the advantages of Git out the window and depend upon one master repo? You are aware that you can use your local repo are you not?
Git makes it pretty awkward to sync a branch via multiple paths. A globally-accessible repo that never goes down is the only easy way to transfer revisions.
Yes, that's true but that's acting like there's no fallback when things do go down. A 'repo that never goes down' doesn't really exist (as is proven here)
