22 ms·

I am not sure if I am going to like this feature. I miss the simplicity. Guess those times re over.

captn3m0 2y ago
I'm remembering the Redmine slide from Zach Holman's talk, where he makes fun of the overly complicated Redmine issue creation screen, compared to what the GitHub screen looked like (back in 2011). Slides 56 and 57 at https://speakerdeck.com/holman/how-github-uses-github-to-build-github?slide=56 https://speakerdeck.com/holman/how-github-uses-github-to-bui...
dacryn 2y ago
same here. I guess it's Microsoft slowly making it cater to their enterprise clients
- foepys 2y ago
  Microsoft is getting ready to replace Azure DevOps with GitHub.
  - alternatex 2y ago
    This is fiction considering Microsoft is extensively using Azure DevOps internally and is still developing it. Moving projects away from it and to GitHub is impossible because they're incredibly far from having feature parity.
    - ciberado 2y ago
      Feature parity is probably not required as long as the different teams are able to adapt their workflow to GitHub's approach. Anecdotally, every employee from Microsoft I've talk to about this point during the last two years keep telling me that ADO is over.
      - stackskipton 2y ago
        Feature parity is absolutely required. We are ADO customer because A) Inertia and B) GH Actions is nowhere close to features of ADO Pipelines. Every conversation we have with Microsoft about our ADO -> GH migration is either get GH to feature party or if you force us to migrate, we will evaluate ALL our options.
  - zo1 2y ago
    People have been saying this for half a decade, and fearmongering everyone into moving elsewhere (sadly my team fell for it). Azure Devops is such an underrated tool, it's a shame that it's being ignored by Microsoft. Not only that, but they're enshittifying it by turning into Github. I kid you not, it actually went backwards in terms of features. E.g. Instead of nifty UIs that was implemented for their pipelines, we now instead have to write shitty yaml files with absolutely no validation and guidance. This is the same company that (re)wrote Word, Excel and Powerpoint in the browser! The mental whiplash from witnessing this is very jarring.
Gigachad 2y ago
I can handle these 3 changes but if they take it any further it's going the way of jira..
- globular-toast 2y ago
  That's not how it works. It is going the way of Jira. What you mean is if it keeps going that way it will be Jira. Until we get to the point we can decide things are finished and move on to other problems, everything will turn into Jira eventually. It's like entropy. We have the power to stop it, but it wouldn't guarantee those sweet, sweet growth targets.
  - voidfunc 2y ago
    The problem is Microsoft has two products in this space but everyone hates Azure DevOps which is supposed to be a JIRA competitor and GitHub is where all the momentum is. They'd love to ditch having to maintain ADO and GitHub long term but that means crapifying GitHub so they can migrate their ADO customers. At the same time they're hoping to pull Atlassian customers that use JIRA and GitHub to ditch the latter and just entirely be on GitHub. What well end up with is a service that sucks to use for all cases.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - SSLy 2y ago
      ditch the former?
      - ronnier 2y ago
        I really dislike the use of former and latter. It’s confusing, people get it wrong, and it can be interpreted at least two different ways to make it ambiguous.
        layer8 2y ago
jonpurdy 2y ago
It is less simple, but nowhere Jira-level, and yet still more useful (for my team and I). We've been using GH Projects at my current org and program for two years. The one feature I wish it had was nested issues. In Jira, you had Epic > Task > Sub-task and that's it. With GH, you can just have issue > issue > issue (insert "it's turtles/issues all the day down meme"). So it's more powerful, but can be ignored by folks who don't want to do this.
renegade-otter 2y ago
GitHub is free for most people, so they are only beholden to large organizations and their feature requests. This is how it seems now - a feature creep by committee. It's getting more and more bloated and unwieldy, sort of like what happened to AWS.
- sneak 2y ago
  This is just Conway’s Law. Microsoft is a juggernaut.

I'm remembering the Redmine slide from Zach Holman's talk, where he makes fun of the overly complicated Redmine issue creation screen, compared to what the GitHub screen looked like (back in 2011). Slides 56 and 57 at https://speakerdeck.com/holman/how-github-uses-github-to-build-github?slide=56 https://speakerdeck.com/holman/how-github-uses-github-to-bui...

dacryn 2y ago

same here. I guess it's Microsoft slowly making it cater to their enterprise clients

foepys 2y ago
Microsoft is getting ready to replace Azure DevOps with GitHub.
- alternatex 2y ago
  This is fiction considering Microsoft is extensively using Azure DevOps internally and is still developing it. Moving projects away from it and to GitHub is impossible because they're incredibly far from having feature parity.
  - ciberado 2y ago
    Feature parity is probably not required as long as the different teams are able to adapt their workflow to GitHub's approach. Anecdotally, every employee from Microsoft I've talk to about this point during the last two years keep telling me that ADO is over.
    - stackskipton 2y ago
      Feature parity is absolutely required. We are ADO customer because A) Inertia and B) GH Actions is nowhere close to features of ADO Pipelines. Every conversation we have with Microsoft about our ADO -> GH migration is either get GH to feature party or if you force us to migrate, we will evaluate ALL our options.
- zo1 2y ago
  People have been saying this for half a decade, and fearmongering everyone into moving elsewhere (sadly my team fell for it). Azure Devops is such an underrated tool, it's a shame that it's being ignored by Microsoft. Not only that, but they're enshittifying it by turning into Github. I kid you not, it actually went backwards in terms of features. E.g. Instead of nifty UIs that was implemented for their pipelines, we now instead have to write shitty yaml files with absolutely no validation and guidance. This is the same company that (re)wrote Word, Excel and Powerpoint in the browser! The mental whiplash from witnessing this is very jarring.

Gigachad 2y ago

I can handle these 3 changes but if they take it any further it's going the way of jira..

globular-toast 2y ago
That's not how it works. It is going the way of Jira. What you mean is if it keeps going that way it will be Jira. Until we get to the point we can decide things are finished and move on to other problems, everything will turn into Jira eventually. It's like entropy. We have the power to stop it, but it wouldn't guarantee those sweet, sweet growth targets.
- voidfunc 2y ago
  The problem is Microsoft has two products in this space but everyone hates Azure DevOps which is supposed to be a JIRA competitor and GitHub is where all the momentum is. They'd love to ditch having to maintain ADO and GitHub long term but that means crapifying GitHub so they can migrate their ADO customers. At the same time they're hoping to pull Atlassian customers that use JIRA and GitHub to ditch the latter and just entirely be on GitHub. What well end up with is a service that sucks to use for all cases.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - SSLy 2y ago
    ditch the former?
    - ronnier 2y ago
      I really dislike the use of former and latter. It’s confusing, people get it wrong, and it can be interpreted at least two different ways to make it ambiguous.
      - layer8 2y ago

jonpurdy 2y ago

It is less simple, but nowhere Jira-level, and yet still more useful (for my team and I). We've been using GH Projects at my current org and program for two years. The one feature I wish it had was nested issues. In Jira, you had Epic > Task > Sub-task and that's it. With GH, you can just have issue > issue > issue (insert "it's turtles/issues all the day down meme"). So it's more powerful, but can be ignored by folks who don't want to do this.

renegade-otter 2y ago

GitHub is free for most people, so they are only beholden to large organizations and their feature requests. This is how it seems now - a feature creep by committee. It's getting more and more bloated and unwieldy, sort of like what happened to AWS.

sneak 2y ago
This is just Conway’s Law. Microsoft is a juggernaut.