4 ms·

It's not hard to imagine a world in which someone builds or continues to improve an issue tracking system better than GitHub, because GitHub seems to be activel

It's not hard to imagine a world in which someone builds or continues to improve an issue tracking system better than GitHub, because GitHub seems to be actively uninterested in improving its issue tracking system in various dimensions that matter to a lot of issue tracking system users (ability to attach testcases, dependency tracking, and release management are the big ones for me personally). It's not just that GitHub is lacking in those areas; they've repeatedly rejected suggestions for improving them.

icefox 12y ago
If it makes you feel any better out there is a really good issue tracking system that has a bolted on git repository system that actively is rejecting improvements for their repo stuff. If GitHub didn't have issues people would still be there. If GitHub didn't have Git people would leave. Issues are a accessory to the main event like AppleTv is to the iphone/macbook
larsberg 12y ago
> they've repeatedly rejected suggestions for improving them. I certainly agree that it's easy to imagine better issue management or patch review than GitHub has today - like many other projects we use other systems. When I've talked with GitHub engineers, all of our issues are well understood and they have plans to address them. My skepticism is around the strategy of building and supporting our own things vs. partnering with places like GitHub that make a living building and supporting such software. In the Mozilla-specific case, they have proven open to working with us in the past, by pony-trading enhancements to Firefox for enhancements to GitHub, and the inability to deliver has been more on our side :-/
- bzbarsky 12y ago
  Interesting. I haven't seen any requests for enhancements to Firefox (or more precisely Gecko) from GitHub, and I watch all incoming Gecko bug reports... Were they asking for these enhancements from Firefox itself, not Gecko, or through some sort of opaque channels or something? Past that, partnering with people makes sense to me if they're flexible enough to add things when we need them. My point is simply that historically GitHub has not been adding the things we need.

icefox 12y ago

If it makes you feel any better out there is a really good issue tracking system that has a bolted on git repository system that actively is rejecting improvements for their repo stuff. If GitHub didn't have issues people would still be there. If GitHub didn't have Git people would leave. Issues are a accessory to the main event like AppleTv is to the iphone/macbook

larsberg 12y ago

> they've repeatedly rejected suggestions for improving them. I certainly agree that it's easy to imagine better issue management or patch review than GitHub has today - like many other projects we use other systems. When I've talked with GitHub engineers, all of our issues are well understood and they have plans to address them. My skepticism is around the strategy of building and supporting our own things vs. partnering with places like GitHub that make a living building and supporting such software. In the Mozilla-specific case, they have proven open to working with us in the past, by pony-trading enhancements to Firefox for enhancements to GitHub, and the inability to deliver has been more on our side :-/

bzbarsky 12y ago
Interesting. I haven't seen any requests for enhancements to Firefox (or more precisely Gecko) from GitHub, and I watch all incoming Gecko bug reports... Were they asking for these enhancements from Firefox itself, not Gecko, or through some sort of opaque channels or something? Past that, partnering with people makes sense to me if they're flexible enough to add things when we need them. My point is simply that historically GitHub has not been adding the things we need.