@siracusa What this graph actually shows more than anything is the fact that after the MS acquisition (although not because of it), there was a more formalized incident management process put in place, with dedicated staff hired for managing incidents and developing incident tooling. The entire time I worked at GitHub, availability was typically around 2.5 nines, or roughly 99.5 percent. The reason this graph looks the way it does is not because site availability was worse after the acquisition. It's because incident management improved.

@siracusa There are two reasons why this data is not accurate. The first is simply that when GitHub moved to Statuspage, the existing data wasn't imported, or didn't exist. The second was that GitHub simply didn't status for incidents in a reliable or consistent fashion.  Which brings me back to the graph and how to interpret it.

@siracusa The major problem is that the GitHub published availability data is just not accurate before around 2020. For example, I personally caused a multi-hour outage in 2018, but the graph claims the site was only down for seconds for the entire year, and of course we had plenty that were just the normal outages as a result of unforeseen problems, bugs, provider failures, hardware failures, etc.