[mholt]

We can of course host our code elsewhere, the problem is the community is kind of locked-in. It would be very "expensive" to move, and would have to be very worthwhile. So far the math doesn't support that kind of change.

Usually an outage is not a big deal, I can still work locally. Today I just happen to be in a very GH-centric workflow with the security reports and such.

I'm curious how other maintainers maintain productivity during GH outages.

[Kenny_007]

For us the main shift was accepting that “being able to work locally” and “knowing whether users are affected” are two different problems.

Local dev usually survives outages just fine. What hurts is losing external signals and assuming things are okay when they’re not.

After a few incidents like this, we stopped relying on a single monitoring setup. One self-hosted probe plus at least one fully independent external check reduced blind spots a lot. It doesn’t prevent outages, but it avoids flying blind during them.

[gostsamo]

Yep, I get you about the community.

As an alternative, I thought mainly as a secondary repo and ci in case that Github stops being reliable, not only as the current instability, but as an overall provider. I'm from the EU and recently catch myself evaluating every US company I interact with and I'm starting to realize that mine might not be the only risk vector to consider. Wondering how other people think about it.