5 ms·

It would be neat to have Github, Gitlab, etc. mirrored because I've always seen issue software that doesn't directly integrate with repositories to be more work

It would be neat to have Github, Gitlab, etc. mirrored because I've always seen issue software that doesn't directly integrate with repositories to be more work to manage than not. I make heavy use of the `fixes #` feature on Github to auto-close issues. This adds up over one or two years when you're closing multiple issues per week.

humanfromearth 6y ago
Same here, I tried Linear, but the fact that it doesn't use github as the source of truth is a deal breaker for us. I would love something like Reviewable - it uses github as the "DB" and provides a nicer interface for doing code reviews.
- evaneykelen 6y ago
  I’m working on TaskSift which, although it’s not a pure issue tracker, does use a mix of sources like email, github, etc as its source of truth when it comes to issue status. We struggled quite a bit with getting this status thing right, finally settling for model where user stories inside TaskSift are based on multiple inbound tickets (each with a different status), and where each story can be published eg to GitHub, QA queue, an l10n tool, etc again each with its own status and completion time. Once all published tasks are finished the folks who contributed to the inbound tickets can all be notified, and the tickets can be closed, either from within TS or using the tool in which the ticket was created originally (Zendesk etc).
- tommoor 6y ago
  > the fact that it doesn't use github as the source of truth is a deal breaker for us. Why is that important? You'd be completely hamstrung by the available GitHub API's and speed.
  - hobofan 6y ago
    > You'd be completely hamstrung by the available GitHub API's and speed. Out of all the APIs I've built similar projects on, GitHub has been among the ones that's the easiest to mirror/cache to your own DB, so I wouldn't say that's really a problem in practice.

humanfromearth 6y ago

Same here, I tried Linear, but the fact that it doesn't use github as the source of truth is a deal breaker for us. I would love something like Reviewable - it uses github as the "DB" and provides a nicer interface for doing code reviews.

evaneykelen 6y ago
I’m working on TaskSift which, although it’s not a pure issue tracker, does use a mix of sources like email, github, etc as its source of truth when it comes to issue status. We struggled quite a bit with getting this status thing right, finally settling for model where user stories inside TaskSift are based on multiple inbound tickets (each with a different status), and where each story can be published eg to GitHub, QA queue, an l10n tool, etc again each with its own status and completion time. Once all published tasks are finished the folks who contributed to the inbound tickets can all be notified, and the tickets can be closed, either from within TS or using the tool in which the ticket was created originally (Zendesk etc).
tommoor 6y ago
> the fact that it doesn't use github as the source of truth is a deal breaker for us. Why is that important? You'd be completely hamstrung by the available GitHub API's and speed.
- hobofan 6y ago
  > You'd be completely hamstrung by the available GitHub API's and speed. Out of all the APIs I've built similar projects on, GitHub has been among the ones that's the easiest to mirror/cache to your own DB, so I wouldn't say that's really a problem in practice.