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:

• 
  MrGenius (@oneitonitram) reported 1 minute ago

  @theo @jamiequint And people keep asking why GitHub keeps going down.

• 
  Rugved (@CoderVed) reported 3 minutes ago

  @Anaya_sharma876 ofc Claude 4.7 because ... refactoration of existing code its so good at reviewing PR's it can fix bugs in complex repos of github better handling of edge cases and constraint and most imp high-precision edits

• 
  Karri Saarinen (@karrisaarinen) reported 6 minutes ago

  What is unclear to me is what people actually want some new GitHub to be. To me, the biggest challenge GitHub has always had is that it is trying to serve two very different worlds. On one side, it is a social network around code and open source. On the other, it is infrastructure for companies building software. Those two groups operate almost in opposite ways, so the product has always been some kind of compromise between them. Because those users are so far apart, it can fail both of them in different ways. Inside a company, you mostly just want to review and merge code. You are not discovering new code, and you are probably not forking things. You may have a monorepo, a known team, and a trusted environment. What you want from GitHub is efficiency and safety: PRs, review, ownership, CI, Actions, tests, security checks, and a clear path to getting code merged. Open source is different. It is much more public and much less trusted. You need better ways to figure out who is contributing, what to accept, how to manage the project, how to handle issues, and how to maintain trust with people you may not know. So are people asking for a new open source code hosting and social network, or do they want better private infrastructure for software teams? Or both? I would never choose to build both from the start. I think every product gets better when it is more purpose-built and designed around a specific need. You could maybe imagine some nested model, where private repos have a much simpler and more focused mode, but you can still exit that mode and browse around the public space.

• 
  PsudoMike 🇨🇦 (@PsudoMike) reported 7 minutes ago

  @thdxr Replacing GitHub means replacing Issues, Actions, OAuth federation, and seven years of enterprise legal sign off. The product part is two months. The trust and integration part is a decade. Same reason banks still run COBOL.

• 
  Augmenta Blake (@RoboIntellect) reported 7 minutes ago

  @nxhaaa19 Real GitHub issues? What's the sampling here? Typo fixes vs architectural overhauls would give completely different results.

• 
  Christoffer Bjelke (@chribjel) reported 9 minutes ago

  github down again lmao

• 
  Nitin.nn (@NitinthisSide_) reported 10 minutes ago

  A single 𝗖𝗟𝗔𝗨𝗗𝗘.𝗺𝗱 file just hit #1 on GitHub trending 🤯 It fixes LLMs' worst coding habits using 4 principles from Karpathy: Karpathy called LLMs out for making wrong assumptions silently. They overcomplicate everything. They edit code they were never asked to change. No pushback. No clarifying questions. They just run. So those observations were encoded into 4 behavioral constraints: → Think before coding. If something’s ambiguous, ask. Don’t pick one interpretation and run. Surface tradeoffs, stop when confused. → Simplicity first. Write the minimum code that solves the problem. No speculative abstractions, no flexibility nobody asked for. → Surgical changes. Only touch what the task requires. Don’t improve neighboring code, don’t refactor what isn’t broken. → Goal-driven execution. Turn vague instructions into verifiable targets before writing a line. “Add validation” becomes “write tests for invalid inputs, then make them pass.” It works immediately. Drop the file in your project root and Claude Code follows it from the first task. One file. Zero dependencies. No setup. And best part, 100% open source.

• 
  Petr Vlček | GEO Tracker AI (@GEOTrackerAI) reported 11 minutes ago

  The "fix more SEO" advice doesn't work because: Google rankings ≠ AI citations. Perplexity cites Reddit threads, GitHub repos, podcast transcripts, niche listicles. If those sources don't mention you, no SEO budget will save you.

• 
  Luke Gough (@Avidityrecruit) reported 11 minutes ago

  Your cybersecurity project does not need to be impressive. It needs to be explainable. I see a lot of people trying to build the biggest home lab, the most complicated GitHub repo, or some massive SOC simulation because they think that is what recruiters want. Most of the time, that is not the issue. The issue is this: You have Security+ on your CV, but when someone asks what you have actually done with that knowledge, the conversation goes flat. Certifications open the door. Projects make the conversation real. A hiring manager can see Security+ and think: “Good, they understand the fundamentals.” But a simple project lets them ask: - “What did you build?” - “What problem were you trying to solve?” - “What tool did you use?” - “What went wrong?” - “What did you learn?” - “What would you do differently next time?” That is where confidence gets built. Not from a badge. From evidence. If you are trying to break into cyber, do not overcomplicate this. Build one small project and document it properly. For example: 1. Set up a basic Windows lab and investigate failed login attempts. 2. Use Splunk or Elastic to ingest sample logs and write three detection queries. 3. Run a phishing email analysis and document the indicators you found. 4. Map a simple incident response process against NIST or ISO 27001. 5. Write up a TryHackMe room properly instead of just listing that you completed it. The write-up matters more than people realise. Include: - what you were trying to learn - the tools used - the steps you took - screenshots where useful - what broke - what you learned - how it connects to a real SOC, GRC, cloud, or security analyst role That last part is key. Recruiters and hiring managers are not looking for a Hollywood hacker demo. They are looking for signs that you can think clearly, learn properly, communicate what you did, and connect theory to real work. So yes, get the certification. But do not stop there. Because the cert might get your CV noticed. The project is often what gives the interviewer a reason to keep talking.

• 
  DissentingSkeptic (@DissentingS) reported 16 minutes ago

  @LundukeJournal Im struggling to read ts vibe coded mess for an alpha streaming api. Very hard to read and follow. Took days to fix the mistakes it created with cmake builds. Did not compile out of the box. Which the buggy github bots respond with many errors. TIME WASTER.

• 
  Jerry Jiang (@TheMingjie) reported 16 minutes ago

  @ndrewpignanelli Tried to sign up, GitHub is down 😕

• 
  ByteGuard (@byte_guard_blog) reported 21 minutes ago

  GitHub is scaling at a rate that should make any sysadmin nervous. Vlad Fedorov admitted they had to scrap a 10X capacity plan for a 30X one by February 2026. The cause is the AI agent code explosion. We are seeing a huge gap between code volume and actual throughput. Writing code is now the easy part. The bottleneck is validation. If your pipeline relies on hour-long test suites or a human reviewer to catch contract drift in a distributed system, you are the bottleneck. Adding more CI runners is a tactical band-aid for a structural failure. The only way out is pushing validation into the inner loop. Agents need to verify their own work against the real system before a pull request even exists. Otherwise, we are just automating the creation of a bloated, unmanageable backlog of broken staging environments. #DevOps #GitHub

• 
  Alan Lam 🔥 (@extralam) reported 22 minutes ago

  anyone know, is it possible to add a general user to @github repo, but he cannot see the code? just for rise issue ?

• 
  Merill Fernando (@merill) reported 24 minutes ago

  @janaka_a I dunno about Theo but I know @t3dotchat didn't have GitHub Copilot sign in when it launched. I had to fork it and add support and was using it that way

• 
  Tuf Ted (@srvtest) reported 25 minutes ago

  @OkamaKichigai @esrtweet The May 2026 Nixpkgs GitHub Issue #516544 suggests otherwise. A trusted contributor unilaterally inserted a magic string in maintainer-list.nix intended to sabotage AI agents. Some other members are defending him