GitHub struggles with AI-driven workflows and reliability issues

"I want to code. And I can't code with GitHub anymore." That's Mitchell Hashimoto. GitHub user #1299. The man who built Terraform and Vagrant. After 18 years — he's moving Ghostty off GitHub. And I don't blame him. For a month he kept a journal. Every day GitHub disrupted his work, he marked an X. Almost every day had one. Then April 23: a squash merge bug corrupted 658 repos and 2,092 PRs. That's not downtime. That's data loss. Then April 27: All of GitHub — search, Issues, PRs, Projects — went completely dark. GitHub's CTO apologized. Said they now need 30× capacity. February alone had 37 platform incidents. Here's what nobody's saying: GitHub is bending under the weight of agentic AI. Copilot sessions. Parallel agents. Millions of automated calls per minute. The platform was never designed for this. And it's cracking. When the person who defined modern DevOps infrastructure says GitHub is "no longer for serious work" — that's not a hot take. That's a warning. Where do you go when GitHub goes down? 👇 #GitHub #OpenSource #Ghostty #Developers #DevTools #SoftwareEngineering #Tech #BuildInPublic

Ghostty just left GitHub. Mitchell Hashimoto's terminal project, gone elsewhere. This is bigger than one project moving its repo. The "GitHub is the default" era of open source is ending. Here's why, and what's actually replacing it. Three forces converging in 2026: 1. AI training rights. GitHub is owned by Microsoft. Microsoft is OpenAI's biggest backer. Every public repo on GitHub is now training data for someone, with terms that aren't 100% clear. Maintainers who care about provenance are voting with their feet. 2. Operational reliability. GitHub had multiple multi-hour outages this month alone. For a tool that gates the deploy pipeline of half the planet, that's not acceptable. Everybody talks about "platform risk" until their CI is down on a Tuesday afternoon. 3. Sovereignty pressure. European companies, government contractors, regulated industries, the "all our code lives on a US-owned platform" model is being questioned. Increasingly answered with: it shouldn't. What's replacing it isn't "another GitHub." It's federated, self-hosted, and pluralistic. Forgejo. Gitea. Codeberg. Sourcehut. Self-hosted GitLab. Even raw Git over SSH for the truly committed. The migration is happening at the maintainer level first, the small-team level next, and the enterprise level after that. The bet I'm making for 2027: open source projects worth caring about will be hosted on something that isn't GitHub. The dependency graph is starting to shift. Pretty sure the next 18 months are going to be loud. #OpenSource #GitHub #Sovereignty #DevTools #Software

Three of the most credible projects in open source either left GitHub or got hit by it in the last 30 days, each for a different reason. At least two of those reasons are not the ones the open source versus GitHub debate has been arguing about. On April 14, Mitchell Hashimoto announced Ghostty is leaving GitHub after 18 years on the platform, pointing at chronic Actions outages and the April 27 incident as the breaking point. His exact line was that GitHub "is no longer a place for serious work if it just blocks you out for hours per day, every day." On April 15, Cal,com pulled its production codebase into a private repository. The community fork on cal,diy stayed open under MIT but lost Teams, Workflows, SSO, Insights, and most enterprise features. Cal,com's stated reason was that AI vulnerability scanners can now systematically pull chains of weaknesses out of open codebases faster than maintainers can patch them. That is AI as an attacker, which is a different argument from the AI training rights story most of the industry has been having. On April 28, GitHub disclosed CVE-2026-3854, a CVSS 8.7 remote code execution vulnerability triggered by a single git push, capable of running code on shared storage nodes that hold millions of public and private repositories. One project left for reliability, one left because of AI assisted attack surface, and the third disclosure is a working example of the kind of vulnerability the second project was trying to get ahead of. Hosting your own code started as a freedom argument, became a price argument, and has now become an argument about not being downstream of someone else's outage or breach. The projects choosing public by default in 2026 are making a different bet than they were making in 2022, and most of them have not noticed the bet changed.

GitHub isn’t collapsing, but the shift in developer thinking is very real. This week, Mitchell Hashimoto, creator of Ghostty and HashiCorp co-founder, announced that after nearly two decades on the platform, his major project is moving away from GitHub. The deciding factor? Reliability. Frequent outages, particularly with GitHub Actions, have been disrupting consistent development and deployment workflows. Instead of treating it as occasional inconvenience, he’s taking structured action: Gradual migration to alternatives Keeping a read-only mirror on GitHub Exploring both open-source and commercial platforms This isn’t an isolated reaction. It highlights three growing concerns among engineering teams: • Reliability is now table stakes, not a nice-to-have. When your CI/CD pipeline stalls, velocity drops across the board. • Single-platform dependency carries real risk in 2026. • Flexibility and control are becoming non-negotiable. Many teams are now actively evaluating GitLab, Gitea, Forgejo, and other self-hosted or hybrid solutions. My take as a Full Stack & AI Engineer: Convenience got us here, but production-grade systems demand stability. Whether I’m building distributed backend services with FastAPI + Redis queues or integrating LLM workflows, I can’t afford tooling that blocks progress daily. The future belongs to platforms (and engineers) that prioritize control, observability, and resilience over ecosystem lock-in. Question for the community: If GitHub reliability continues to impact your workflows, would you consider migrating critical projects? What alternatives are you watching? #GitHub #DevOps #SoftwareEngineering #CI_CD #OpenSource #TechTrends #DeveloperExperience

The green contribution graph of GitHub is starting to show some serious cracks. 📉 If you've felt like your CI/CD pipelines have been lagging recently, you aren't alone. It is pretty apparent how severely GitHub's infrastructure is buckling. The Reality of Uptime: While official status pages report high reliability, third-party monitors show that actual uptime in April 2026 plunged to an abysmal 86%. Late April saw a cascade of severe failures, including the loss of 292 pull requests, a massive botnet attack on the search subsystem, and a critical remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability. The AI Overload: The root cause? The massive rise of autonomous, agentic AI development workflows is essentially hammering the site’s infrastructure beyond its original limits. This instability is actively pushing high-profile maintainers to the exit. When you are deep into configuring advanced, GPU-accelerated terminal environments like Ghostty on macOS, you rely heavily on stable upstream infrastructure. So when its creator, Mitchell Hashimoto, publicly announced he is migrating the project away from GitHub after keeping a journal of chronic outages that blocked his daily work, the community paid attention. 👩💻 If this downtime continues to bottleneck deployments, it is time to seriously look at alternatives like GitLab, the nonprofit Codeberg, or the minimalist SourceHut. #GitHub #SoftwareEngineering #OpenSource #DevOps #WebDevelopment #TechCommunity

If you're a developer, you probably noticed something weird with GitHub this week. Here's what actually happened, in plain English: GitHub is basically the cloud where developers store their code and work together on it. Think of it like Google Drive, but for software. Millions of teams depend on it every single day. Over the past few weeks, GitHub has been struggling. A few of the bigger issues: → On April 23, a bug in their "merge" feature combined code incorrectly. Around 2,000 pull requests across 658 repositories were affected. No code was lost, but some projects ended up in the wrong state and had to be fixed manually. → On April 27 and 28, their search system broke. That meant pull request lists, issues, and project pages were showing incomplete results, or just not loading. → Today (April 29), they're still working through the cleanup. Full recovery is expected within 24 hours. The reason behind all this? GitHub's CTO openly admitted that they're being hit by massive growth, especially driven by AI coding tools and agents. They originally planned to scale their systems 10x. Now they're realizing they actually need 30x. Lessons for anyone building software: 1. Even the giants break. Reliability is hard at scale. 2. Always have a backup plan (local commits, mirrors, etc). 3. Growth is a great problem to have, until your infrastructure can't keep up. Respect to the GitHub team for being transparent about it. Owning your mistakes publicly is underrated. #GitHub #SoftwareDevelopment #DevOps #TechNews

GitHub just admitted their 10X capacity plan was not enough. They now need 30X. The CTO published an update today that reads like a war report. Two incidents in the last week: a merge queue bug that corrupted branch state across 658 repositories, and a search outage that killed UI functionality for hours. Both trace back to the same root cause. Agentic coding. Since late December 2025, autonomous AI coding agents have been hammering GitHub's infrastructure at a rate nobody planned for. Repository creation, pull requests, API calls, automation, large-repo workloads - all growing exponentially. And here is the part that makes it interesting: a single pull request can touch Git storage, mergeability checks, branch protection, GitHub Actions, search, notifications, permissions, webhooks, APIs, background jobs, caches, and databases. At scale, small inefficiencies compound. Queues deepen. Cache misses become database load. Retries amplify traffic. GitHub Actions is getting hit especially hard. Agentic workflows spawn long-running, parallel CI sessions that dwarf what human developers generate. Copilot code review now consumes GitHub Actions minutes on top of AI credits. The automation layer was not designed for agents running multi-hour autonomous sessions at this volume. The free ride is ending. Starting June 1, Copilot moves to usage-based billing measured in AI credits tied to token consumption. GitHub has already paused new sign-ups for several Copilot tiers. A quick chat question and a multi-hour autonomous coding session used to cost the same amount. That math does not work anymore. Which raises the real question: is the agentic era sustainable on infrastructure built for humans? GitHub is rearchitecting critical systems, isolating services, migrating off legacy frameworks, and pursuing multi-cloud. But the honest read is that the platform is playing catch-up to a usage pattern that showed up faster than anyone modeled. When your 10X plan lasts four months before you need 30X, the planning horizon itself is broken. The agentic era is not a future problem. It is a right-now infrastructure problem. And someone has to pay for it. #GitHub #AgenticAI #DevOps

GitHub is sitting in a strange spot right now: critical infra for almost every dev team, but struggling with reliability just as AI agents are flooding it with new load. Availability dropping to "one nine" and a steady stream of outages point to infra that was built for humans, not thousands of bots spinning up repos and hammering APIs in the background. At the same time, a tiny startup like Pierre Computer claims to handle repo creation at a scale that looks tailor-made for agents, not people. If GitHub wants to stay the top git platform for AI-native development, it has to treat agent traffic as first-class. That means an AI-native git layer, better scaling of stateful systems like databases and Redis, and a clear North Star around being the backbone for agentic code lifecycles. The current mix of Copilot branding, internal politics, and no CEO naturally pulls attention away from the boring but essential work of hardening the platform. But it is also worth being cautious with the clean narrative. GitHub runs a very different workload from a greenfield product in closed beta, with years of baggage, enterprise constraints, and a massive ecosystem to keep stable. Self-reported numbers from a startup and a rough month of incidents are not enough on their own to declare the incumbent broken or the new model proven. Shutting down Copilot or slicing away half the product surface sounds decisive, yet could throw away real value while the market is still figuring out how devs and agents should work together. The useful takeaway is not that GitHub is doomed or that an AI-only platform will automatically win, but that infrastructure and product strategy now have to be designed around agents and humans coexisting at scale. Getting that tradeoff right - reliability for everyone, while building new, agent-native primitives with a clear focus - will matter a lot more than any single outage or launch over the next few years. https://lnkd.in/dECY42Vt

Everyone jokes about rm -rf *… until it actually happens. A while back, GitHub engineer accidentally accidentally ran a destructive command on the wrong repository. Not a fork. Not a personal project. The company’s main GitHub repo. Within seconds… pipelines failed. Services broke. Data disappeared. Panic kicked in. And this wasn’t a small startup. This was at the scale where even minutes of downtime matter. But here’s the part no one talks about 👇 The system came back. Why? Because great engineering isn’t about never making mistakes. It’s about designing systems that survive mistakes. -> GitHub backups saved them -> Branch protections prevented even worse disasters -> Teams jumped in and fixed things fast Within hours, everything was restored. 💡 The lesson? If you’ve ever broken something in code, accidentally deleted a branch, or messed up production… You’re not alone. Even the best engineers have done it. The difference isn’t perfection. The difference is how fast you recover and what you learn. So next time you make a mistake… Don’t panic. Improve your system. Because in tech, mistakes are not the end. They’re part of the process. #github #programming #softwareengineering #devlife #learning #growth #tech

GitHub breaks almost every day. Or so it seems. Mitchell Hashimoto, the author of Ghostty and one of the most respected open source developers out there, kept a personal journal for a month, marking every day GitHub blocked his work. The result: more or less 90% actual uptime, against the 99.9% stated in the SLA. He then wrote a post that went viral, to the point where GitHub's COO publicly apologized. And it doesn't look like an isolated case: Zig has migrated to Codeberg, GitHub's own company blog admits they're not meeting their SLAs, and GitHub Actions is increasingly unstable. The root cause seems structural: Microsoft is shifting resources and attention toward AI (CoreAI division), and GitHub is paying the price of that prioritization. Maybe it's time to seriously evaluate alternatives? https://lnkd.in/e7JNC8yc #GitHub #OpenSource #DevOps #Reliability #SoftwareEngineering