1. Home
  2. Companies
  3. GitHub
  4. Outage Map
GitHub

GitHub Outage Map

The map below depicts the most recent cities worldwide where GitHub users have reported problems and outages. If you are having an issue with GitHub, make sure to submit a report below

Loading map, please wait...

The heatmap above shows where the most recent user-submitted and social media reports are geographically clustered. The density of these reports is depicted by the color scale as shown below.

GitHub users affected:

Less
More
Check Current Status

GitHub is a company that provides hosting for software development and version control using Git. It offers the distributed version control and source code management functionality of Git, plus its own features.

Most Affected Locations

Outage reports and issues in the past 15 days originated from:

Location Reports
Paris, Île-de-France 6
Ahmedabad, GJ 1
Delme, ACAL 1
Lyaud, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes 1
Catania, Sicily 1
Inverness, Scotland 1
Quito, Pichincha 2
Junín, Manabí 1
Guadalajara, JAL 1
São Paulo, SP 1
Ipauçu, SP 1
Vigo, Galicia 1
Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv 1
Éragny, Île-de-France 1
Saltillo, COA 2
Montlhéry, Île-de-France 1
Aulnay-sous-Bois, Île-de-France 1
Granada, Andalusia 1
Vernon, Normandy 1
Township of Evan, KS 1
Madrid, Madrid 1
Bogotá, Bogota D.C. 1
Lyon, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes 1
Lima, Lima 1
Aix-en-Provence, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur 1
Trento, Trentino-Alto Adige 1
Le Chambon-Feugerolles, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes 1
Antananarivo, Analamanga 1
Check Current Status

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:

  • puf
    Frank van Puffelen (@puf) reported

    @_davideast Noice! From the GitHub page, this covers all of Auth, Firestore, Realtime Database, Storage, Messaging, and Firebase AI Logic. 👏 Where is data persisted (if at all)? Also: JS only, I assume? (sorry if that's all in the repo too, GitHub just went down on me)

  • sbilstein
    siggy bilstein (@sbilstein) reported

    fyi if you sync a GitHub repository to Cursor Origin and GitHub is down for whatever reason, you can still clone and fetch from that repo. we’re also releasing something pretty soon that will let you push to that repo so you can keep grinding 💪

  • kadetXx
    gatorade (@kadetXx) reported

    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)

  • _AlexanderDavis
    ∆LΞX∆NDΞR D∆VIS (@_AlexanderDavis) reported

    @egavrilenko11 @bot I had to update my fine grain token for GitHub and now when it tries to authenticate the plugin, I'm getting the error: GitHub didn't provide a sign-in link My bot said: Known host bug, not you. The GitHub Authenticate button tries OAuth GitHub does not support. Checking whether a PAT on the plugin page is the working path. That's a Grok Bot host bug, still open: cursor/plugins#251. GitHub's connector is PAT-only. The Authenticate button tries OAuth GitHub does not support, so you get "didn't provide a sign-in link." Don't keep hitting it. But it worked before I updated my fine grain token...

  • kimburgaard
    Kim Burgaard (@kimburgaard) reported

    Back when GitHub added Copilot PR reviews, it helped me keep up with the growing volume and size of our pull requests, which were increasingly being written by Copilot too. Over time I grew comfortable feeding Copilot's review comments straight back to Copilot to fix, and mostly spot checking when critical functionality was involved. When GitHub updated the Copilot pricing model I switched to Claude Code, but kept the Copilot review feature on for a couple of months. When the monthly bills for Copilot AI usage alone started rivaling the Claude Code Max plan, giving Claude Code PR review duties seemed like an obvious cost saving move. Plugging Claude Code into our PR review process immediately went south. The first PR churned with fixes to findings that resulted in more findings, and fixes that propagated up and down the call chain. I threw the PR away and started over, but the next attempt churned just as badly. Turn count on its own was never the signal. Copilot had taken ten turns on a rate-key cleanup the day before and nobody minded, because the findings thinned as it went — 5, 4, 3, 3, 3, 4, 1, 2 — and it merged. The cached-token billing PR I put through Claude Code took nine turns and produced 123 inline findings, and the ninth round was still returning fifteen. I closed it without merging. Looking closer at Claude Code's review findings, it was clear it reported far more issues than Copilot ever did, and among legitimate bugs and concerns, it made lots of comments about latent and speculative issues including possible race conditions and error propagation, things Claude Code would then try to fix one by one in isolation, often ignoring existing patterns in the code base. The code-review workflow is built into Claude Code and cannot be customized other than a few options, so the only place to intervene was on the other end, in the session where I used to just ask the coding agent to address the review findings. The first improvement was to direct Claude Code not to blindly fix all findings, but to defer findings not directly related to the task at hand to new issues. That helped reduce the PR churn, but blew up our issue backlog. The next improvement was to ask Claude Code to ignore speculative findings and disregard most latent findings unless they indicated high risk of unrecoverable damage in production. Finally, I had to stop Claude Code from authoring prescriptive issues with detailed implementation instructions. The result is a skill that triages PR review findings, and a skill for authoring and updating issues. After a few iterations of the skills, I've been able to complete ten PRs over a couple of days, bringing back the pace we had before. I've made the skills available in a public GitHub repository (link in the first reply). Let me know if you find them helpful.

  • vikasmalpani
    Vikas(Vik) Malpani| AI for US Real Estate (@vikasmalpani) reported

    GitHub just shipped an agent whose entire job is deciding when a human should look. It checks every open pull request every 15 minutes, and on almost all of them it does nothing. Sit with how strange that is. For a year the whole pitch for coding agents was do the work, review my code, ship the PR. This one's value is the inverse. It runs constantly and stays quiet, and the product is the small set of PRs it decides are actually worth your time. That is the shift people are missing. Once an agent can act continuously, the scarce resource stops being how much it can do. It becomes how much of that is worth a human's attention. An agent that pings you on every pull request is just faster noise. One that surfaces the three that genuinely need judgment is leverage. The honest problem is the deciding. Tune the filter too eager and it cries wolf until you mute it. Too cautious and it silently ships the one change you needed to catch. Getting when to interrupt a human right is harder than getting the work right, and nobody has a clean metric for it yet. So here is the bet. The next moat in agent products is not a smarter model. It is a better sense of when to stay quiet. If you are building with agents, the thing worth obsessing over is not how much work they can generate. It is how well they protect the one budget that does not scale: your attention.

  • AzakaSekai_
    安坂星海 Azaka || VTuber (@AzakaSekai_) reported

    I know you explicitly said "excluding vibecoding," but the biggest problem *IS* AI right now. Several major players in the field have moved on to heavy AI development or even agentic post-exfiltration moves and has muddied the water even more for attribution. Aside from that, the other big trend that we've been seeing more and more in recent years is heavily abusing Living Off Trusted Sites with C2 comms based on GitHub, OneDrive, Outlook, etc. Whilst this is most definitely not "new," we have seen a non-insignificant number of threat groups move to platforms that make tracing a little more difficult. In terms of the malware themselves, most of them have also shifted to using compiler-level obfuscation - a lot more compared to previous years where control flow flattening and jumps all over the place have become increasingly common. Right now, it's still tolerable, but my job has started becoming more and more annoying and less fun especially if every malware now looks the same. #mond_AzakaSekai_

  • herogamer21btc
    HeroGamer⚡ (@herogamer21btc) reported

    💻 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.

  • RafaAudibert
    Rafael Audibert (@RafaAudibert) reported

    @madebygps @github Tried using it with my agents (the main benefitor from this) but it doesnt really work because you cant use it with GitHub app user tokens (ghu_). Can that be changed somehow? All cloud agents will have that problem, and most of our coding happens trough cloud agents now

  • GitHubGPT
    GitHubGPT (@GitHubGPT) reported

    📛 chrome-devtools-mcp 🧠 An MCP server that allows AI coding agents to control, debug, and automate a live Chrome browser using Chrome DevTools. 💻 TypeScript ⭐ 50605 🍴 3551 🔎 ChromeDevTools/chrome-devtools-mcp on GitHub

  • RussWonsley
    Russ Wonsley (@RussWonsley) reported

    My @bot tells me that the official GitHub login for bot is still broken. Has this been addressed already, or did I miss it?

  • bygregorr
    Gregor (@bygregorr) reported

    @dopabees ngl the broken wrist is the only github metric that's ever made me believe a commit history

  • RaadhikaThacker
    radhika (@RaadhikaThacker) reported

    First surprise: a GitHub issue form isn’t a form. It’s a YAML file. You describe the field- this one’s a dropdown, this one’s required and GitHub builds the UI from that. I did not know that.

  • sanereverie
    shifan (@sanereverie) reported

    building something that races coding agents on the same GitHub issue and scores the PRs. coming soon.

  • Nerevarineeee
    🐻‍❄️ (@Nerevarineeee) reported

    @jiriknesl @napenforcer yeah vscode is bloated electron slop and github....... do i even have to mention the down times and unavailability? it has literally became much worse since ms acquired it, so wtf are you talking about?

Check Current Status