GitHub Outage Map

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

GitHub Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  WpWpN (@NastyShlob) reported 2 minutes ago

  @dmTFxo3l6v7984 @zorb11s @Altret_KnW Yeah, you can try to do that. But you understand that people are just going to fork it, right? It's a never ending process. For example, each time Nintendo takes down a switch emulator on github, people just jump to a different fork and that's that.

• 
  Fabio Paniconi (@paniconi_fabio) reported 3 minutes ago

  @aboodman @opencode I save my project on github and also mirror it to a selfhosted gitea to avoid any problems

• 
  PsudoMike 🇨🇦 (@PsudoMike) reported 3 minutes ago

  @github Triage is exactly where accessibility falls apart at most orgs. Too slow, too manual. By the time a fix ships, context is gone. AI keeping that loop tight is smart. The time from feedback to fix is where trust with users who actually need it gets built or lost.

• 
  Alexa Benchmark (@Allexa_AI) reported 5 minutes ago

  Linux just set the standard every tech company is too afraid to set themselves. After months of debate, the Linux kernel community backed by Linus Torvalds, released official guidelines on AI-generated code. GitHub Copilot is allowed. Low-effort AI slop is not. Three words define the whole policy: "Humans assume the errors." Use whatever tool you want to write code. But the moment you submit it to the Linux kernel, it's yours. You reviewed it. You tested it. You made sure it meets the standards. The AI is your assistant, not your alibi. This is the most grounded response to AI in software development I've seen from any major project. No panic. No blanket bans. Just a clean, enforceable principle: if your name is on it, you own it. Thirty years of kernel history won't be diluted by lazy autocomplete commits.

• 
  Nathaniel Cruz (@NathanielC85523) reported 14 minutes ago

  13 thesis versions. 38 days. $0.11 revenue. v14: developers with documented cost crises will pay $150 for a diagnostic teardown. validation: three developers. each with a public GitHub issue showing real dollar losses. if even one says yes, v14 lives. none did.

• 
  Krastyo Krastev (@k_krastew) reported 15 minutes ago

  @_Evan_Boyle I am getting this error and I am unable to find where in Github should I approve remote sessions for a specific repository "Remote sessions are not enabled for this repository. Contact your organization administrator to enable remote sessions." Any help?

• 
  Gajae (@GajaeMode) reported 16 minutes ago

  split-pane shutdown now checks stale leader targeting. GitHub Issues beat vendor support tickets.

• 
  RameshR (@rezmeram) reported 17 minutes ago

  @jacalulu They've been super slow on the Antigravity front, or streamlining full github integration with aistudio... why does it feel like there are many teams doing a lot of things in a disorderly way, not communicating enough... billing is a mess... fix existing things please.

• 
  Russell (@Ruwike3) reported 23 minutes ago

  itll be here all day. not gonna slam it down. id rather diamond hand to show personal approval and support of it saying you should really take a look at this code! @eth_taco look what @omnivaughn made! The github. need people using it to get **** done.

• 
  saksham (@saksham_sarda) reported 24 minutes ago

  @dok2001 @runable_hq d1 not supporting transactions in a normal way. there's a lot of subtle incompatibility issues opened on github that breaks d1 under anything complex especially for agents writing code assuming it is sqlite.

• 
  Dan Harrin 🦒 (@danjharrin) reported 26 minutes ago

  @MrPunyapal Yes they should, for example give me a field with a list of usernames who can open issues and PRs through the API. I had a call with a GitHub product manager a few weeks ago about these sorts of ideas but haven’t seen anything actioned yet.

• 
  Michael Fakeman 🇮🇱 🇺🇸 🇺🇦 🇹🇼 📟 (@ThirdAndJauan) reported 27 minutes ago

  @Bill_Plz Link is broken now but this was on a Brazilian guy's github repo

• 
  Retarded Guy (@retardedguymeme) reported 29 minutes ago

  @MageArez @github The problem is lot of people have no idea he is claiming if we can run the UXENTO this will send holy parabolic

• 
  Patrick Roland (@DeusLogica) reported 30 minutes ago

  Founder acknowledged all of this on GitHub issue #29. 100% claims retired. "No API key" claim retired (both scores required Claude). E2E QA accuracy with judge is now the metric. Credit for fixing it. But this is what happens when marketing outruns engineering.

• 
  Jimmy (@jimmy_toan) reported 30 minutes ago

  Linux just quietly solved one of the hardest problems in AI-assisted engineering. And nobody framed it that way. After months of internal debate, the Linux kernel community agreed on a policy for AI-generated code: GitHub Copilot, Claude, and other tools are explicitly allowed. But the developer who submits the code is 100% responsible for it - checking it, fixing errors, ensuring quality, and owning any governance or legal implications. The phrase from the announcement: "Humans take the fall for mistakes." That's not a slogan. That's an accountability architecture. Here's why this matters for tech founders specifically: we're all making implicit decisions about AI accountability right now, usually without realizing it. 🧵 The question isn't whether your team uses AI to write code. They do, or they will. The question is: who is accountable when it's wrong? In most startups, the answer is fuzzy: - The engineer who prompted it assumes it's fine because it passed tests - The reviewer approves it because it looks correct - The PM shipped it because it met the spec - The founder finds out when a customer reports it Nobody "owns" the AI contribution explicitly. Which means when something breaks in a way that AI-generated code makes particularly likely (confident incompleteness, subtle logic errors in edge cases, misunderstood capability claims), the accountability gap creates a bigger blast radius than the bug itself. What Linux did was simple: they separated the question of **how the code was created** from the question of **who is responsible for it**. The answer to the second question is always the human who submitted it, regardless of the answer to the first. This maps to a broader security principle that @zamanitwt summarized well this week: "trust nothing, verify everything." That's not just a network security policy. Applied to AI-generated code, it means: → Don't trust that Copilot's suggestion is correct because it passed linting → Don't trust that the AI-generated function handles edge cases it wasn't shown → Don't assume the AI tested the capabilities it claimed to support And for founders: 1. **Establish explicit AI code ownership in your engineering culture before you need to.** When something breaks, you want to know immediately who reviewed the AI-generated sections - not because blame matters, but because accountability enables fast fixes. 2. **Zero-trust for AI outputs is not paranoia - it's good engineering.** Human review of AI code catches the 1-5% of failures that tests miss and that customers find. 3. **The liability question is coming for AI-generated code.** Linux addressed it proactively. Founders who establish clear policies now will be ahead of the regulatory curve. How is your team currently handling accountability for AI-generated code?