0x0@lemmy.zip to Technology@lemmy.zipEnglish · 22 hours agoGitHub Outages Since Microslop Acquisitionlemmy.zipexternal-linkmessage-square38fedilinkarrow-up1652
arrow-up1652external-linkGitHub Outages Since Microslop Acquisitionlemmy.zip0x0@lemmy.zip to Technology@lemmy.zipEnglish · 22 hours agomessage-square38fedilink
minus-squareDahGangalang@infosec.publinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up50·22 hours agoObv a gross looking chart, but I am bothered that the left hand scale is trimmed off. I expect those are 10% increments, but wouldn’t be shocked if Original was like 99.0, 98.0, 97.0, etc.
minus-squarevogi@piefed.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up43·22 hours agoYou’d be surprised: https://damrnelson.github.io/github-historical-uptime/ But weirdly enough it feels much worse using gh professionally than the scale makes it seem.
minus-squarelemmyman@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up17·edit-219 hours agoThe graph is neat. Saving some people a click: the cut-off y scale in the OP image is in 0.1% increments. So the lowest point is a little above 99.5%
minus-squareraspberriesareyummy@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·18 hours agoThank you! I was thinking “it can’t just be me that’s bothered”
Obv a gross looking chart, but I am bothered that the left hand scale is trimmed off. I expect those are 10% increments, but wouldn’t be shocked if Original was like 99.0, 98.0, 97.0, etc.
You’d be surprised: https://damrnelson.github.io/github-historical-uptime/
But weirdly enough it feels much worse using gh professionally than the scale makes it seem.
The graph is neat.
Saving some people a click: the cut-off y scale in the OP image is in 0.1% increments. So the lowest point is a little above 99.5%
Thank you! I was thinking “it can’t just be me that’s bothered”