> BTW, this is the same argument that people used to use against distributed version control. Maybe people do, but it's Apple's and organges. Modifying files l

> BTW, this is the same argument that people used to use against distributed version control. Maybe people do, but it's Apple's and organges. Modifying files locally is the nature of software development. Switching from SVN to git didn't change the actual developer workflow of "make changes and commit", which is just not how issues are dealt with in reality. Also, what about authentication for the web front-end? Are you going to have a database to manage users? Every use case of a distributed issue tracker just seems to go against the grain. A better approach would be to build a traditional issue tracker (centralized) that has the ability to use git internally as a database engine for issues only (not users, settings, etc). Commit author names/emails are linked to actual user accounts and users could optionally clone the issues repository, use a cli-tool and push it back up to the server. This would be to issue trackers what GitHub/GitLab is to repositories.