3 ms·
I think it is interesting and a shame that we accept centralized issue tracking at all. Git is wonderfully distributed, probably in more than most of the github
by aerojoe23 7y ago
I think it is interesting and a shame that we accept centralized issue tracking at all. Git is wonderfully distributed, probably in more than most of the github users realize. Unless they've gone out of their way to learn about it.
When things like this (github's ban) happen, I think it is too bad that we don't have a widely accepted issue tracker built into git. To be a little more clear, you'd get all of the source and all the issues when you clone or pull. Updating would work just like updating files when you push.
Microsoft has appeared to start loving open source. I'm sure there are people there that do, but Microsoft itself I wouldn't be so sure. The are certainly embracing it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
- jayshua 7y agoI mean, you could just make a folder with a text file in it for each issues. People can write comments in it. Move them into a "complete" folder when done. Write down who it's assigned to at the top. You wouldn't get some of the more complex features of course, but I'm not sure a git built in issue tracker could do most of that anyway. Not clear how it could send email notifications?
- czechdeveloper 7y agoIt's not Microsoft choice. They have to listen to US laws.
- rkeene2 7y agoYou could also switch from Git to Fossil which supports issues and wikis as part of its decentralized nature, in addition to unversioned artifacts (e.g., for release artifacts)