2017-12-19 12:47 GMT+01:00 Phyx <[email protected]>: > Cool, then let's turn to media reports then such as > https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/31/github-goes-down-and-takes-developer- > productivity-with-it/ do you have one for git.haskell.org going down?
Of course this question is a classic example of "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" fallacy, but anyway: * https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/4gppm8/ann_hackagehaskellorg_is_down/ * http://blog.haskell.org/post/4/outages_and_improvements.../ * Searchs ghc-devs@ for posts regarding Phabricator updates, Server moves, problems with arc... (not exactly all downtimes, but in effect of the incidents are the same) I am not saying that the haskell.org infrastructure is bad, far from it, but it would be an illusion to think that it has a much higher effective uptime than GitHub. Furthermore: I don't think that the argument should revolve around uptime. We have a distributed version control system where people can happily work for an extended time span without *any* network at all, and the GHC source repository is not a financial application which would cause the loss of millions of dollars per minute if it's temporarily unavailable. The arguments should be about simplicity, ease of use, etc. Anyway, for my part the discussion is over, there *is* more or less open hostility towards GitHub/more standardized environments here. Is it an instance of the common "not invented here" syndrome or general mistrust in any kind of organization? I don't know... :-/
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
