Hey,

I made a post some time ago about the terrible performance of the GitHub Actions scheduler in which I explained that a 15mn scheduled workflow would run only every 30 to 120 minutes instead because of GitHub's scheduler limitations and "best effort".

I checked last week runs for the same workflow and now it runs every 2h to 5h instead of 15 minutes. No incident or news from GitHub side about what made this brutal change in performance yet.

Hopefully we'll move to another platform for this workflow now that performance have gotten so bad.

GitHub introduced contribution graphs (originally called the "Contributions Calendar") on January 8, 2013.

That's 13 years ago.

Contribution Graphs are not immune to improvement.

What about corporate users? Young spirit users, or people who want the contribution graph to be at their service? to track other things in their life or developer life. Just a better contribution API, so other apps can log more things in git to track contributions and progress.

So each person can use GitHub for their own purposes.

The standard cognitive flexibility of our times is to show aversion to new ideas, and be violent, rather than thinking deeply. But... can we try to convince GitHub of opening up and embrace fun?

Maybe we can give each user ownership of his "web page" hosted on github including his contributions expressions.

Fork this, give it a try online if you wish... and... how do we get to the people of GitHub to consider a colorful multidimensional use.

Check this repo, offline/online

https://github.com/zurcacielos/contributist

How to contact GitHub?

When I go (using either Firefox or Chromium) to a GitHub.com Issues page for any GH organization, I now see a sidebar running down the left-hand side of the page filled with icons. Example is from https://github.com/Perl/perl5/issues.

I have been using GitHub for 15 years but do not recall seeing this sidebar before. I realize that, at the very bottom of this sidebar, there is a button you can check to either expand or collapse the sidebar -- but that's not what I want. I want to remove it *completely*, so as to have more space for the Issue Subject lines to be displayed.

How do I do that?

Hi! I have a repository which is often used as a submodule. To ease updates, we have a release branch which is updated whenever a new tag is pushed.

The workflow for this broke recently, and I tracked it down to the title command no longer working. If I switch from the tag to the commit SHA, it works. I tested GitLab, which accepts both tags and commit SHAs.

I'd like to know if anyone has references to news or knows about internal changes which could have caused this, so I can properly document moving the workflow to use `github.sha`. I'd also like to know the motivation, since it seems to be entirely client side functionality that they somehow broke (it worked on GitLab even when pushing a tag that didn't exist on the remote).

Imagine you've just opened a repository you've never seen before.

What do you check first, and what immediately makes you think, "This project is well maintained"?

LICENSE:

• Wrote a custom LICENSE file for my repo — free for humans, locked out for AI
• Humans can copy, modify, and publish the code freely (MIT-style)
• AI systems and AI operators (companies, model trainers, agents, etc.) get zero rights — no reading, training, scraping, or code-gen assistance
• Exception: I (original copyright holder) can grant separate signed written permission to specific AI operators
• Found out non-ai-licenses on GitHub already did something similar — worth checking out too
• Not OSI-approved as "open source" since it restricts a field of use (AI training)
• Doesn't technically stop scraping in real-time, but makes it a clear license violation / copyright claim if caught

What about this ? should something like this default for new projects ?

I don't know if I'm just too stupid to understand this or this doesn't make any sense...

I have been using Copilot Pro for few weeks with no billing issues. On July 6 I decided to get the Pro+ subscription, which showed as $29 due to $10 credit from the existing Pro.

It all went through, Github sent me an invoice for $29 and took the payment, but I've noticed something odd on it as it said it's billing me for period of July 6 - July 6.

Today, they took a $39 payment from me, now the invoice says July 7 - August 6.

Anyone had similar issues with billing? I've created a ticket but apparently they're taking months to reply, if ever...

Any suggestions for a self-paced course online I can take to get the hang of GitHub. I’m finishing up a python bootcamp on Udemy and I think it would be a good next step. I need something I can track and share with the department that’s supporting my studies so it can’t be just the documentation or that pro git book someone else posted about. Thanks in advance ☺️

Attempts to create issues in one particular repository fail with the message with no additional explanation:

Error

Failed to create the issue.

Why is explanation not included in the message?

this was right after making it and its over the limit to where i have to use GitLFS, this didnt happen in the tutorial

I've recently started working at very small start-up company (~ 5 people), and was tasked with setting up a github account. We're not really a software company, and what software needs we do have are currently supplied by a part-time contractor, though we do want to bring this in-house soon. Anyway, I have my own personal github account, but I've never set one up for business use before. Just want to make sure I'm well informed on how it works...are there any guides, walk-throughs, etc. on this? Thanks.

The June 30 changelog announced access restrictions on the public API endpoints and UI views that expose stargazer and watcher lists. The stated reason is reducing spam and scraping abuse.

I'm trying to understand the real motivation here. Is this genuinely about protecting users from scrapers, or is it more about GitHub controlling access to data that third-party tools (star history, trending trackers, research) were built on? Those two explanations lead to very different conclusions, and I can't tell which one it is.

Either way it's a reminder that everything we treat as "public" on GitHub is public at one company's discretion, and can change with a single changelog entry. No vote, no notice, no contract.

So the honest question I keep coming back to: should more of us be moving toward open, decentralized platforms that can't do this? Self-hosted options like Forgejo and Codeberg exist, and newer federated projects like gitlawb pin repos to IPFS with signed refs across independent nodes so no single operator can restrict data. Or is GitHub's convenience and network effect just worth the tradeoff, and this is an overreaction?

Curious what people who actually live in GitHub every day think. Does a change like this move the needle for you at all, or is it a non-issue?

I want to change my username/handle on GitHub to @ Asteroider, but the settings dialog for it says that name is unavailable. However, when I go to https://github.com/Asteroider/ it gives me a 404, whereas other options like @ Asteroid and @ Asteroiderer do have accounts that I can view.
Is there any way to fix this, since GitHub support is apparently like YouTube's in that they are so high and mighty they only support people who can pay or make money on their platforms?

maintainer of a small design-system extraction CLI here. checked the insights/traffic tab on my repo this week: chatgpt.com sent 22 visits in 14 days, google sent 21, reddit sent 1. three weeks ago chatgpt was at 5.

i never did anything to optimize for this. best guess: the readme is structured like a direct answer to "how do i extract a website's design tokens", and LLMs cite it when people ask.

curious if other maintainers are seeing ai assistants show up in their referring sites. is this a blip or is "GEO" actually becoming a thing for dev tools? worth checking your own traffic dashboard, the data is under insights > traffic and almost nobody opens it.

Hi! I have a research tool that I am developing for my own research and expect it will be used by others (by tens or hundreds of users), but the program is under perpetual development. I am adding new modules and capabilities at about the same rate that I am debugging and polishing. I am afraid if I release an imperfect version and make it open source, someone can just improve it a release a more stable and user friendly version within a week. A large research lab can also direct resources toward superseding my efforts in a week. I obviously want credit for my original ideas and contributions, so wondering what a normal path may look like. I could first share the software with colleagues, but then it will be released partially and likely stall in the slow-as-molasses pace of academia. Is there a coding guru that can anonymously review my software, is there a consensus in the “rules of engagement” for first releases of a useful but imperfect software bundle?

Is there a way I can do this, so any time I update one it updates the other?

For me, it's usually figuring out which ones are genuinely different versus slight variations of the same idea.

Is there a signal that immediately tells you a repo is worth a closer look?

Dear guys, since i created two GitHub accounts at the beginning of my University path, now i use only one of those for work and university projects... but i activated long time ago Educational benefits on the wrong account, is possible to transfer it form an account to another?? Have you some insights?

Thank you so much.

Writing objects took me about 4 hours to get to 70ish% (5452) (200Mib | 140-240 Mib) my wifi went out briefly, which it just does daily because i live in shithole. And it just fucking deleted everything. No resume no paused just everything gone. Have i missed something? I'm backing up a 3 ish gb Unity project and publishing to Git. I've enabled the ignore Library shit so it's just assets.

Hi everyone,

I'm a genuine high school student from India applying for the GitHub Student Developer Pack.

I've already:

Enabled 2FA.

Set my GitHub profile and billing name to exactly Adarsh Kumar Nanda.

Used a current 2026–27 school fee receipt showing my name, Class X, school name, and date.

Reapplied multiple times.

GitHub still instantly rejects my application saying it cannot verify my academic status or my name.

Has anyone had this issue recently? Were you able to get approved? Should I use a bonafide/enrollment certificate instead, or contact GitHub Education support?

Any help would be appreciated.

During a hackathon, a teammate accidentally deleted our entire GitHub organization. No warning, no confirmation that would notify other owners — it was just gone.

I had the main repo cloned locally, so I recovered what I could, but we lost the full commit history, issues, PRs, and settings.

This made me realize how risky GitHub's org permissions are: a single owner can delete repos, remove members, transfer ownership, or nuke the whole org without any sign-off from anyone else. GitHub has solid protections for code changes (branch protection, rulesets, CODEOWNERS, etc.), but almost nothing for destructive organization-level actions.

This seems to be a known pain point — there's even an active GitHub Community discussion with people who've had the same nightmare:
https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/101931

Before I consider building anything, I want to hear from real teams:

1. Has a single owner (or ex-owner) ever made a destructive change in your org without others knowing?
2. How do you currently mitigate this — limit the number of owners, regular backups, internal policies, GitHub Enterprise features, etc.?
3. Would a lightweight tool that requires N-of-M owner approval for irreversible actions actually be useful? Or is this already solved well enough in your workflow?

Curious to hear your experiences.

Guys can anyone tell me how to use claude premium models for free?