GitHub status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours

The graph below depicts the number of GitHub reports received over the last 24 hours by time of day. When the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line, an outage is determined.

Most Reported Problems

The following are the most recent problems reported by GitHub users through our website.

• Website Down (53%)
• Errors (33%)
• Sign in (14%)

Live Outage Map

The most recent GitHub outage reports came from the following cities:

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Paris	Website Down	13 days ago
Ahmedabad	Errors	18 days ago
Delme	Sign in	19 days ago
Lyaud	Website Down	19 days ago
Catania	Errors	22 days ago
Inverness	Website Down	1 month ago

Full 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:

• 
  Fofer (@foferxxx) reported 17 seconds ago

  @AmigamagazineGA Has there been any public explanation as to why this GitHub repo was taken down? It’s been 404 for days. Is there a story there?

• 
  Charles Waters (@RelaxedPop) reported 58 seconds ago

  @_andrewthecoder I have the same problem with *** & github as I do with Java and JavaScript.

• 
  Franco Valdes (@francoxavier33) reported 2 minutes ago

  llms rather burn 1m tokens to hand roll something with gaps and broken edge cases instead of just npm installing a 100k github star library how can I stop this?!

• 
  AI Scientist (@AIScientist_X) reported 9 minutes ago

  NEWS: X LANDS FIRST PUBLIC ALGORITHM PR > X OPEN SOURCE SAID SEP 1 THAT AFTER 2 PLUS WEEKS OF DAILY UPDATES IT INTEGRATED A FIRST PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION AND THAT THE CHANGE IS NOW LIVE ON X. > IT SAID THE SMALL UPDATE IS BASED ON GITHUB PULL REQUEST 55. X CLOSED THAT PR AS COMPLETED AFTER LANDING ITS OWN FIX. SOURCE: X OPEN SOURCE

• 
  Anders (@AndersReiche) reported 9 minutes ago

  @bjmtweets Would love to hear your thesis on gitlab. I’m a software engineer, and in my experience, gitlab has been slow to everything and generally is the red headed stepchild next to GitHub. It suffers from lack of network effects, there are solutions to everything on GH, but not GL.

• 
  Phanindra Malladi (@malladiphani) reported 10 minutes ago

  Lesson from running the factory: always fix the post-purchase experience BEFORE driving traffic. Receipts, upsells, GitHub links - all must be solid first. Social comes after the house is in order.

• 
  Jason Sawyer (@foilmanhacks) reported 13 minutes ago

  There's a huge problem in InfoSec education: it’s way too course and tool focused. Instead of teaching the underlying methodologies and how to discover or invent, we feed people the latest "OSINT" slop script that’s been shat onto GitHub. OSINT isn’t about using scripts or services. It’s about understanding how they work, and being able to create your own.

• 
  Chris (@c_hri_s) reported 17 minutes ago

  @Anime0t4ku Sorry - was an idiot and wasn't signed in. Instead of something useful github just says 'opening issues is restricted on this repository'

• 
  Gordo Polymath (@gordo_polymath) reported 18 minutes ago

  @github Please fix gh stack.

• 
  The Oracle (@scientist1q) reported 18 minutes ago

  when my Oura ring detects a cortisol spike from a GitHub Actions failure, Hermes (Fable 5.1) detects it and sends a 900 word root cause analysis, Hermes dispatches the work to my 12 Grok Bot employees, The Chief of Operations bot approves the fix while im watching rezero

• 
  HeroGamer⚡ (@herogamer21btc) reported 19 minutes ago

  💻 GitHub Issues vs Draft PR vs Open PR — the difference nobody explains: 🔴 ISSUE = Should we do this? No code yet You describe the problem "App crashes when pasting OP_RETURN" "We need X feature" Anyone can open it Goal: decide IF and WHAT to build 🔵 DRAFT PR = I'm doing this, is this the right way? You have WIP code "I fixed it by doing Y, but not sure about placement / approach" Can't be merged Perfect for early feedback Goal: validate HOW you're building it 🟠 OPEN PR = I did it, ready for final review, please merge. Code done, tests pass Ready for final review Goal: ship it 🌊 Flow: Issue → Draft PR → Open PR Most people skip Issue or Draft and go straight to Open PR. Then maintainer has to review both the idea AND the implementation at once = slow, painful. Start Draft when unsure.

• 
  David Abram 🐊 (@devabram) reported 21 minutes ago

  Discord is down. X is down. GitHub is down. Software is solved.

• 
  Prophet Joel (@2happyCSGO) reported 21 minutes ago

  I personally hated Claude because it refused to do almost anything I asked it to do so have no idea of how the speed is but gemini-cli was unusable for non enterprise users. Github CoPilot both GUI and cli is pretty good. Grok Build is what I'm using mostly and not yet had any issues with the speed but I want to go full local asap, scouting for 3090's atm. Just to be able to run "uncensored" models that don't ***** like Claude is reason enough for me to prefer local over Cloud but also cloud is ******* expensive, I have SuperGrok 100$/month and CoPilot Max 100$/month and that is barely enough. I'm trying to make my own Jarvis so I need to build my own RAG, memory, librarian, SRE Agent that understand how to use all tools and I also get crazy new idea's all the time lol Just made my first alpha of a tool that can wipe basically anything you don't want in Windows11. Basically Chris Titus clone but on steroids, this isn't just a debloater, it's a Grim Reaper 💀

• 
  Ben (@benatcortexai) reported 21 minutes ago

  @github this is the kind of tiny primitive that makes agent workflows less brittle. attaching the repro artifact directly to the issue beats handing an agent a local path nobody else can open.

• 
  Dr Milan Milanović (@milan_milanovic) reported 23 minutes ago

  How Cursor made *** scalable The thing with *** is that it never was designed to be scalable. Your repo lives on the disk, and *** client expect every read to be consistent. This was a problem on GitHub, where shared filesystems and replicated storage failed before 2013. The GitHub built 𝗦𝗽𝗼𝗸𝗲𝘀, and it became the industry standard. This means that every repo is stored as three full copies on three servers, and every push runs a vote (three phase commit). A majority of servers must confirm before it exists. This works, but with high cost, because every push is slow as the slowest server. When we add new servers, it makes it even slower. Now Cursor took some opposite direction with 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗶𝘁𝘆. The repo history is now written as a log in S3, and this is only source of truth. Any push counts only if it is located in the log. The servers don't need to keep anything important, they are just cache. Any server can take a push, and idle repos are dropped from disk and rebuilt from the log when it is needed. This resulted in 120 pushes per second on standard S3, and over 300 on S3 Express. Their tests have shown that read capacity grew linearly up to 100 replicas. Why is this important now? Because of AI agents mostly. We now have more code, PRs, CI runs and many small repos. All of these repos would need three full copies in the old model. This means that we achieve scale by removing parts, not adding them.

• 
  XhiMatty (@mychaelmatty) reported 27 minutes ago

  a Sept 2 run. My first thought was “Why did it stop running?” I checked the #YAML file, #python file, GitHub Actions, even inactivity issues. Turns out it was still daytime. The Sept 2 run is yet to happen (at night). Nothing was broken.

• 
  gatorade (@kadetXx) reported 27 minutes ago

  because it’s not worth it for the most part. most software failure or bug incidents don’t have any physical victims. at most company loses some money or the issues are almost instantly fixed, no lawsuits, no so much to answer to the state for if your software has a bug or fails to work as expected for a brief period (think, multiple downtimes from the big five so far, even github too, who died? exactly) and in the industries where bad code fan have physical consequences, they actually do test software like hardware engineers & physicists (i hope)

• 
  Bearded Printer (@BeardedPrinter) reported 28 minutes ago

  @RedPill_Phil You've gotta go to their github and submit an issue. Make sure to search their issues to ensure you don't submit a duplicate bug

• 
  wiiiimm (@wiiiimm) reported 31 minutes ago

  @Umesh__digital stop doing it. we don't need another github outage.

• 
  Kahris (@chrissotraidis) reported 32 minutes ago

  @NickogSo I haven't tested on LiveContainer. Feel free to submit logs via GitHub issues and I'll check it out. I haven't had any other reports of that happening for either build.

• 
  Asterix (@Asterix54907294) reported 33 minutes ago

  end-of-summer snapshot for @QFEX : -~$222M in open interest -CLI v0.3.12 shipped in August with improved installation docs and a go.mod fix -GitHub activity continued through late August not a flashy launch recap, just a quick look at how the exchange is closing out the summer: more markets, meaningful liquidity, and active work on the tooling side still early, but the infrastructure is clearly moving

• 
  Spectra☢️ (@Spectra010s) reported 34 minutes ago

  @izzyCodes_ and you too Chief Check GitHub issues

• 
  WuBu ⪋ WaefreBeorn 🇺🇸 👑 (@waefrebeorn) reported 42 minutes ago

  hey @Teknium @yeahfortommy please add the amd portal too even if tou have to send tommy into the AMD headquarters to get them to fix the links (you have to sign up for american then link through github, then you can access the models free, tommy needs to pull teeth but they have free api)

• 
  Rusty Williams McMurray (@1RustyMac) reported 45 minutes ago

  Persistent AI doesn’t have a supply chain problem at the model. It has a supply chain problem at the moment it changes its mind. Personality drifts. Tools get installed. Memory accumulates. The thing you shipped on Monday is not the thing answering on Friday. We can attest who built the weights. We still cannot attest who authorized what the agent became on Tuesday. That is the hole. Who is allowed to let it change? We built Living Supply-Chain Security for Persistent AI Organisms around one law: The organism may propose evolution. It may not authorize it. No trace, no drift. If an agent wants a new personality, a new tool, a new maturity, or a rollback — that change does not happen because it felt confident. Confidence is not a key. Self-narration is not evidence. Evidence is not interpretation. Interpretation is not authorization. Authorization has to come from outside the organism, bound to the exact change, used once, and written into an append-only history. Even a rollback cannot erase the record. You can restore a prior state. You cannot pretend the detour never happened. Default-deny. Hash-chained. Externally signed. We froze battery v1 on July 5 and ran it against the paper’s own claims. It held. That is executable evidence. Not a proof. Not a production blessing. Not “alignment, solved.” If it can’t be attacked, it isn’t finished. GitHub later this week. Come try to break it.

• 
  Rachael LaGoth (@androidsheeep) reported 48 minutes ago

  @bcherny Please fix the desktop app it's very buggy it keeps disconnecting me for no reason everyday while im working on stuff, i submitted a report but nothing happened and someone else is having the same issue, an issue is open on github for more than 6 months with no solutions help

• 
  Jordan (@jordle91) reported 48 minutes ago

  The surprise: an explosion in GitHub issues. Not from bugs. The whole company realised that filing an issue meant it got built in hours.

• 
  John Crickett (@johncrickett) reported 49 minutes ago

  @Mike_Preston17 I don't think they water them down, why would they when they're competing on having AGI? I don't mind using GitHub actions to run tests and builds against a branch before merge. I don't want it triggering production schedules. Do you list all the things it shouldn't do in the prompt?

• 
  Jeremy W (@basicBrogrammer) reported 50 minutes ago

  @bot Anyone else have an issue with the grok bot GitHub connector?

• 
  Fox (@0xMfox) reported 52 minutes ago

  Gave an AI agent a month and GitHub access. Wanted to see if it could make money. The plan was simple. Point it at bounty-labeled issues, let it write the fix, submit the pull request, collect the payout. > Day 1 12 PRs submitted. 0 merged. 2 rejected. 8 just sat there ignored. Somewhere in that first week it also passed its own tests for a file that didn't exist. Wrote 25 tests for notification_service.py. The real file in that branch was called NotificationRoutingMiddleware. Confidently reported clean anyway. > Day 30 Looked completely different. 84 PRs submitted, 59 merged, $500-800 earned. Ran the agent for about $45 in API calls that whole month. Net somewhere around $455-755. Here's the part that stuck with me. Out of those 59 merges, 3 repos accounted for 90%+ of them. Every other repo it touched, zero merges, despite 30+ PRs going out across dozens of projects. Open source bounties follow a power law. Almost nobody merges your first PR. A few maintainers will merge your tenth without even reviewing it closely. That's what actually fixed the acceptance rate, from 24% up to around 70%. Not a smarter model, a scoring function that runs before the agent touches anything. Repos where it already has 10+ merged PRs score +40. Zero competing PRs on the same issue, +20. Five or more competitors already in, -20, skip it. Repos that closed PRs without merging before, instant -100, not even worth reading the issue. The fastest way to build the credibility that makes this work isn't code at all. Documentation translations sit at a 95% merge rate, barely reviewed, always needed somewhere. A handful of clean translations got the agent enough trust that maintainers started assigning it harder issues directly, no competition, no review queue. Spam version of this, submitting to every repo with a bounty label, burned through 30+ repos for 3 that ever paid out. Worse, it reads like exactly what it is to a maintainer watching the same account flood a dozen projects with mediocre PRs. Paid out by the hour, week 1 was rough, close to $5/hour, mostly setup and failed attempts. By week 3-4, once the scoring system was tuned and a few repos trusted it on sight, that climbed to $30-50/hour on the same kind of work. Bookmark this, scoring logic is worth stealing.

• 
  John Zhong | AI Growth Systems (@John_zhong324) reported 55 minutes ago

  @github A repeatable --attach flag turns CLI reports into reproductions: inline screenshots in issues mean a bug gets fixed in one pass instead of two round-trips for context.