4 ms·

I really like that Issues / PR are centralised. The last thing I want is merge conflicts with issue comments... just the thought of that is horrible...

• diggan 7y ago
  I agree, I wouldn't want to have merge conflicts in issues/PRs either, but I don't think just because it's decentralized, means that it would have conflicts. A quick thought would be to have issues/PRs only editable by the author via signing for example. Not allow any edits and just modifications on top of other modifications. Is there a reason you prefer centralization that is not about conflicts?
  • jakobegger 7y ago
    Knowing that everyone sees what I see? If issue tracking was decentralized, you don't know if everyone else sees the same thing as you do. With Github there's a chance that they are down ("degraded service" as they call it), but if it works, you press refresh, and you know you're on the same page as everyone else.
    • diggan 7y ago
      Ah, I see. Thanks for elaborating! Yeah, true that it could be an obstacle. I wonder if the UX of any application for this could solve that by showing indicators of when the last data was fetched/sent, so users could know about possible stale-content. I guess the problem of "everyone else sees the same thing as you do" is also a part of Git, where everyone keeps their own copy + a link to upstream. Seems to work well, wonder if we could possibly do the same with issues/PRs.