[HN Gopher] GitHub Issues-only project management ___________________________________________________________________ GitHub Issues-only project management Author : JonathanBuchh Score : 153 points Date : 2021-08-21 16:56 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (blog.placemark.io) (TXT) w3m dump (blog.placemark.io) | mgbmtl wrote: | If anyone from Gitlab is reading: our OSS community would love to | use Gitlab for everything, but we don't seem to be able to: | | - disable the "packages and registry" menu item for the project | (despite disabling it in the permissions) - odd help texts, such | as "enable LFS to upload a design" displayed to non-admins - | can't hide the service desk menu item, despite permissions. | | I understand it's not an easy compromise to balance discovery and | user-friendlyness, but then we have people in our community who | repeat "gitlab is only for devs" because of this. | | Example: https://lab.civicrm.org/support | Stratoscope wrote: | I am embarrassed to admit that my most popular GitHub repo is an | issues-only tracker for something I didn't even create: a popular | ham and commercial handheld radio, the AnyTone | AT-D868UV/AT-D878UV. | | After I bought my radio, I found a few firmware issues and looked | for a way to communicate them to the manufacturer. No luck on | that. There was an active Facebook group, but it was a weird | place run by a radio dealer who would ban you for discussing | anything he thought might interfere with his business. | | So I made a repo and started adding issues for the things I'd | noticed. People found it and it took on a life of its own. The | most popular issue is a lengthy collaboration among several hams | who worked out a way to load the D878UV firmware onto later | versions of the D868UV (the hardware is the same). | | This was one of the topics that would get you banned on that | Facebook group, as the group owner would rather sell you a new | radio. The funny part is that the upgrade involves buying a | special programming board and considerable time and effort, plus | the risk of ruining your radio. So it was really just a labor of | love for a few hams who had a blast working out how to do the | upgrade. | | Hams may not build our own radios as much as we used to, but we | can still hack the firmware! | | https://github.com/geary/AnyTone-D868UV | jeffnappi wrote: | GitHub issues + ZenHub is a great combo. | derefr wrote: | I tried ZenHub back before GitHub had Projects, but I thought | that Projects had feature parity with ZenHub. What's the | advantage of using ZenHub at this point? | rgbrgb wrote: | We used it as a layer for rough point / estimation tracking. | Not sure that's needed though TBH, in another iteration we | had just put estimates as labels and that worked well. I | really don't care for burn-down charts and the like, but it's | useful to see easily sum up how many points you have in a | sprint. I always wondered why github didn't add this one | feature... but at the same time I think it's such a better | tool than Jira because it's so much simpler. | qaq wrote: | There was great video on how github does it How GitHub uses | GitHub to plan and track work | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTDAlZFhPyM | majkinetor wrote: | You always need repository IMO, even just as DMS system to backup | issues. You always need some files along with issues and copy | pasting them directly into issue is not good idea (+ low number | of formats supported). | axegon_ wrote: | Not github but gitlab EE - we used that at my old job for pretty | much everything(and because none of the people on my team could | stand the jira-confluence duo). | rubyist5eva wrote: | My last company had a change of leadership and dumped Jira for | Github Issues, since we were already paying for Github and | everybody hated Jira anyway. We made extensive use of Github | Actions with it as well. | | Worked great, would recommend. | jrockway wrote: | Not super convinced. | | First off, I am not sure why people like Kanban boards so much. | It seems like the most inefficient way to display issues possible | -- you can't see the details, the title gets cut off into lines | of 4 letters each, and you still have horizontal and vertical | scroll bars. The idea of Kanban was that if you didn't have space | for a card, you wouldn't take on the task. To some extent, this | can work for software; you can say "there are a maximum of 3 | changes per release", and so if there are 3 cards in the "to be | released" column you know you have to do one before anything else | can proceed. But nobody has that rule. Meanwhile, does it apply | to all the columns? Like, you can't report a bug in the software | if the backlog column is full? It makes no sense to me, and I | think it's a huge anti-pattern. | | I much prefer Linear's cycle view ("sprint view" for those of you | that think sportsball metaphors play well with software | engineers), where you can group issues and they show up as the | category and then a list of issues that take up the entire | horizontal width of the window -- so you can see what's in | progress, what's to do, what's done, what's released, at a | glance. Or during cycle planning, you can group by assignee and | see that someone who is on vacation for one week and oncall for | the other has 8 XL tasks assigned to them, and not commit to that | impossible plan. | | I'm not a fan of Github Issues. I find everything I want to do to | be very high overhead. If I want to open three issues, I have to | navigate to the issues page, click "create new issue", type a | title, type a description, click "tags", type the name of the | first tag, click it, delete the stuff I already typed, type the | name of the next tag, click it, etc. Then you submit, and you see | the issue that you just submitted. To file the next issue, you | hit back twice, click "new issue", and repeat. It is incredibly | tedious, and people flat-out don't file issues for stuff they're | working on. (Projects and Milestones are similarly high overhead. | They're infinitely configurable, so useless out of the box, and | therefore require a bunch of setup you have to do for every | project. If you treat Projects as their version of Epics, then | you probably need a Terraform script of something just to get the | right columns on the board, which as I mentioned I don't even | like.) Github's workaround for all of this is some automation to | make PRs close issues, and that's about it. | | Github is also awful with notifications. If someone comments on | an issue assigned to me, nothing happens. If someone @mentions me | in a Github issue, it notifies my phone. If someone requests a | code review from me, it notifies me on Slack. I don't know how | anyone can tolerate a system that is this bad. It's like | Microsoft made the product before they even bought it. | | My experience with all of this is that people don't file issues | for things they're working on, don't close issues that span | multiple PRs, don't reply to issues that require their attention | (or even know what's assigned to them), and leave tasks 90% done | because crucial followup gets forgotten after Github | automatically closes an issue. This makes the system actively | harmful -- at best, it's a dumping ground for ideas that will | never be. If someone was going to do something, they'd just do | it. If it goes into Github issues, it is only worth it for "I | thought of an idea that will take a month to implement, here it | is". Very bad. | | This doesn't even scratch the surface of what an issue tracking | system can or should do, but is hopefully enough to convince you | that it's totally useless. I don't know what issue tracking zen | is, except that when I worked at Google their internal tool | didn't have any of these problems. | | Linear (https://linear.app/) looks really nice. It's like someone | took my exact ideas for how an organization should manage | projects and made it into a computer program. It's speedy. It | tracks exactly the right pieces of information. It lets you take | a look at the company's progress towards its goals, across teams, | with one click. You can operate it entirely with the keyboard. It | has an inbox for everything that requires your specific | attention. It understands the concept of issue triage. Really | great tool. Miles ahead of Github issues (and the things that | integrate with Github issues, like Zenhub). | wereHamster wrote: | How does what you used at Google compare to Linear? | jrockway wrote: | Not as good. Org-wide planning was totally out of scope, but | hotlists were great for organizing cycles, quarters, triage, | etc. Individuals had the ability to look at a hotlist and | decide "what's the #1 thing to work on right now", which I | guess is the most important thing. The tool also made a lot | of mistakes that new tools don't -- separate severity and | priority levels, canned resolutions ("working as intended" | was a meme), etc. | | Avery has some thoughts on the system near the end of his | Epic Treatise: https://apenwarr.ca/log/20171213#slide38 | ngrilly wrote: | The software engineering at Northvolt Systems also switched to | Linear.app and it's amazing. | zestyping wrote: | We recently switched from Trello (ugh! for many of the reasons | you mentioned) to Linear and I'm loving it. | TeMPOraL wrote: | Nope. | | Having worked in a shop that used GitLab issues for project | management, I've come to realize GitHub-style issue trackers work | if all your project management boils down to creating and | tracking bite-sized blobs of work. It stops being sufficient when | you need to actually _plan ahead_. FWIW, so does Trello. Couple | reasons why: | | - Issues are flat. Work breaks down into a tree. And no, "epic / | ticket / checkboxes in task" is not enough, that's barely two and | a half levels. Compare with | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_breakdown_structure [0]. | | - Issues are independent. Properly broken down, work in a project | has dependencies. That turns a tree of tasks into a _directed | acyclic graph_ of tasks - work items depend on other items, often | items from different areas in the WBS. | | - Issues don't schedule well. Most issue trackers I've seen don't | support simultaneously entering planned start/end dates, actual | start/end dates, and actual work being done. This means they | can't be effectively used to estimate the length of the project, | and update that estimate as the project progresses. Forget about | any auto-scheduling. | | There's a reason why old-school PMs love their Gantt charts so | much - they properly reflect the graph-like nature of work, and | they let you see the information crucial for planning at a | glance. | | In my opinion, any system that doesn't support entering DAGs of | tasks with planned manual and automatic dates (e.g. "this task | will take ~5 days, and starts when that other task ends"), and | doesn't allow you to compute the critical path, is not a project | management tool, but a glorified TODO list. A good PM tool does | what I've outlined above, plus it lets you easily run _what-if | analysis_ - that is, play around with estimates, resource | availability, task ordering, to explore the space of possible | project plans and possible failure modes. | | So, in my opinion, neither GitHub/GitLab issues, nor Trello or | other Kanban boards, are useful for PM work. I've heard that | properly configured Jira just might be. MS Project is a good one, | if you ignore its clunky UI and propensity to randomly lock up | for no reason. | | -- | | [0] - Even where the Wiki says "For most projects a hierarchy of | two to four levels will suffice.", this is in context of "lowest | level of detail of the WBS should be longer than a single | reporting period", which would be typically a month or more. | Tickets in the issue tracker are thus _a level below that_. So, | to properly break a project down, you need ~2-4 levels of | structure _above_ your tickets. | neilv wrote: | I came to much the same conclusion (and kinda expected to), but | I did find merits in the GitLab Issues approach. | | As an experiment this year, for a more reactive phase of | engineering in the startup, I experimented with using GitLab | Issues and Board to track all engineering & operations work. | | I redid the GitLab Labels to have two sets: Kanban state, and | color-coded Urgency. Each issue had exactly one from each set. | | I used the "blocks/blocked-by" issue linking to do a crude and | poorly-visualized approximation of Gantt task dependencies. | | For tracking periodic tasks that had a human in the loop (e.g., | run this daily data acquisition tool, spend 5 minutes actually | checking the infrastructure dashboard, periodic offline | backups), they stuck in the Doing Kanban column, and the Due | Date changed to the next day they should be run. This worked | well, except for one unexpected performance issue: the Issues | page for a daily periodic task that included a daily commit and | time spend, and occasion comment... was surprisingly slow to | fully load (without measuring, after a few months, it was maybe | up to 10 seconds, while all those event entries entries were | being loaded). It often slows the daily task, which is | something that makes people avoid/resent tools, but I imagine | speeding it up might be viable. | | I also used the "/spend" in the Comments to track individual | time spends. (I did the spends only myself, as an experiment; I | don't know whether it would go over well with new hires, | especially before we'd established unusual trust that it | wouldn't be used for play-to-the-metrics nor against anyone.) | | The integration with CM workflow is a win for developers and | project managers (whether or not they're the same people). The | performance is so-so. (For example, one "urgency:: | | What might make it really-really win for managing projects that | are plannable (rather than situated action on a weekly basis) | is a solid Gantt view on the same model, plus maybe adding just | a little scheduling to the model. | | (If GitLab doesn't do it, this project management view could | possibly be third-party integration wrt GitLab, like what | Instagantt does as a layer over Asana. I'd almost suggest it to | Instagannt, though hopefully a bit faster to use, so that | project management isn't slowed by tool performance.) | eezing wrote: | Sounds like you spend a lot of time managing your PM tool. | TeMPOraL wrote: | Nah. There's not much to manage in a proper PM tool itself. | But you have to know the basic concepts (like critical path) | and understand the problem space (e.g. tasks form DAGs, not | sequences). Also, project management is in big part planning | the work, not doing the work. Issue trackers help with the | latter, not the former. | simonw wrote: | "Issues are independent. Properly broken down, work in a | project has dependencies" | | A trick I use a lot is to open a "tracking issue" and then link | to it from other dependent issues by mentioning its #ID in | those issue's descriptions. | | The tracking issue automatically shows the open/close status of | those other issues, which means I can see at a glance if all of | the dependent issues have been completed. | | Here's an example: | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1105 | | It's not nearly as sophisticated as what you're looking for in | terms of date estimates and critical paths, but it does work | well for light-weight dependency tracking. | TeMPOraL wrote: | We've done something like this too. It worked well to keep | track of related issues, particularly during regular reviews. | It turned out insufficient when we had to plan ahead for | ~6-12 months of work on polishing "version 1.0" (~300 | existing tickets that needed to be pruned, reprioritized and | otherwise rearranged) and building "version 2.0" (proper | work-breakdown task of a complex project). | | Our PM tried to handle this challenge for a while, by writing | scripts against GitLab API. This eventually turned out | insufficient, so the PM, myself and another coworker set out | to find a project management tool that actually does project | management. It's after extensive discussions and search that | we figured out none of the well-known work tracking products | in software development fit the bill. | | Best easily-accessible options we've found were: MS Project | (if you're on Windows, which we weren't), Jira (if you hire a | person full-time just to manage it) and YouTrack from | JetBrains (if you hire a person full-time just to script it). | There are other options in the corporate PM space, but we | didn't get to explore those as a startup (and eventually | we've all left the company). | gregd wrote: | GitHub issues is great, until and unless you work for a company | that doesn't allow 3rd party access to the Org where all your | repos live. I want and need a one-stop shop for my Kanban board | and I could accomplish this using GitKraken Boards for instance, | but because of where I work, they disallow GitKraken access to my | repo issues. So now, managing a dozen or more repos with an issue | tracker for each one separately, is frankly, a pain in the ass. | polote wrote: | There is no way to move an issue from repository. And this is | just one example. | | But I guess if trello was enough, it means you don't really have | bigger needs than having a list of tasks. | | Stop assuming the thousands of companies which use Jira are | stupid | ricardobeat wrote: | You seem offended at the thought that someone else doesn't | value the tooling you use. Why is that? There is room for | different approaches. | | FWIW, in my experience I haven't seen JIRA add anything besides | overhead, regardless of how tidy a PM makes it. | polote wrote: | I hate JIRA. But if you are not a small organization, JIRA | doesn't play in the same league as Github issues. Same as | Notion and Confluence | civilized wrote: | I question the notion that JIRA is the only workable tool | at large organizations. Many large organizations are full | of small, relatively autonomous teams anyway, and those | teams will benefit from a less bureaucratic tool. | synunlimited wrote: | Do you mean move an issue from one repository to another? | Because that is totally possible now. | polote wrote: | You are right, I totally missed that | simonw wrote: | I've been doing this for all of my personal projects for a few | years now and it works really well for me. | | GitHub Issues has exactly the set of features that I need. I'm | confident I understand 100% of the functionality that it offers, | and I use all of that functionality. | | (The "GitHub Projects" stuff hasn't stuck for me, but that's | presented as an optional layer on top of issues so it's easy to | ignore it.) | | I also love how programmable Issues are. The APIs (both REST and | GraphQL) are easy to use, and the options for automation using | GitHub Actions are exciting, though I've not done much with them | yet. | | I also like having an exit plan for this kind of tool, and the | API means I can easily get all of my issues data out again. I | wrote a tool called github-to-sqlite which exports my data to | SQLite and I use it to build a SQLite database that brings | together data from many of my projects so I can search and query | it in one place - demo here: https://github-to- | sqlite.dogsheep.net/ | bhauer wrote: | This issues-only approach, or what I call just task-tracking, is | my favorite small-team development process. By small, I mean 2 to | 8 people or so. | | I resonate with this blog entry because I agree that the | visualizations that more sophisticated tools provide are low- | value distractions that ultimately cause more problems than they | solve. The most important thing for collaborative development, in | my opinion, is a clear, accurate, singular definition of work to | be done. From there, you can prioritize and adapt as needed, but | spending inordinate amounts of time with visualizations (often to | satisfy some non-technical stakeholders) is wasteful allocation | of resource time. | | My own thinking on task trackers: | https://tiamat.tsotech.com/task-tracking | | For example, a golden rule of mine is that you should only have | one authoritative system used for task-tracking. Any additional | system or tool will inevitably lead to confusion about priorities | and lost efficiency, despite the appearances to the contrary that | lead you to add a tool in the first place. | lamontcg wrote: | Be nice if the new GitHub issues got out of beta, it looks like | that should be able to whittle down 90% of the use cases of | Trello and Jira and be simple and usable for personal issue | management. | derefr wrote: | Tangent, but: | | > or the macOS "Sticky Notes" app that somehow still exists in | 2021 | | Why _isn't_ Sticky Notes just a view into a particular folder in | Notes.app, anyway? | desert_boi wrote: | I actually still use it all the time. Just a habit from when I | started using what was then OS X in '08. | derefr wrote: | Oh, sure, I don't mean "why does this app exist"; I mean "why | isn't its underlying data model merged/synchronized with that | of the other OS note-taking app." Why can't I see my | computer's Sticky Notes on my iPhone in Notes under "Sticky | Notes - [Computer name]"? Why can't I _add_ a sticky note to | my computer by putting it in such a folder? | lstamour wrote: | It might be that the future of sticky notes is Quick Notes | as in iOS 15, but they do different things, I agree. Apple | really should integrate the concept of sticky notes into | both Notes and Reminders, to create a bit of a hybrid - a | sticky note that can act as a reminder, etc. Even better | would be sticky notes that reveal themselves when using | certain macOS or iOS modes, so that when I'm at work I see | my work stickies, and when I'm at home I could see some | home stickies, etc. It should also be easy to remove a | sticky by converting it permanently to a note or reminder, | or maybe even a calendar event or contact. | agustif wrote: | I just wanted to say thanks for the blitz-saas (stripe branch) | example repo from placemark creator. | | Wish you the best! | mwcampbell wrote: | Having to create issues-only repositories seems like a sign that | one may be using the wrong tool. But the simplicity of GitHub | Issues, and the fact that most issues on my plate _are_ related | to a particular repo, makes it tempting. | unethical_ban wrote: | In a previous workplace, our security operations team | (firewall) had several options for project tracking: Nothing, | or Gitlab issues. | | Generically, we're talking "Kanban board" with swimlanes for | the status, tags for categorization, and comments/attachments | for discussion tracking. | | I'm currently in a position to get some people sync'ed on | projects for a client, and I am going to recommend we use | Trello. | | Kanban is just the right level of organization and visibility | without going full agile-daily-standup-sprint overload. | 5e92cb50239222b wrote: | I find it to be unusable for projects of any decent size. | There's pretty much zero visibility on what everybody else is | doing, discussions are hard to use when they go over five | comments (for example, you can't easily binary-search a large | discussion with Home/End or my favorite vim-like navigation | plugin, because you don't have the full page right away and | it loads a few comments at a time). It's very JS-heavy and | writes multiple gigabytes of data to localStorage every hour | (which wears down my SSD needlessly) -- the only web | application I've ever seen doing that. I can go on. | tailspin2019 wrote: | The parent mentioned two tools - which one is your comment | about? | nkozyra wrote: | You don't really need this, though. Github has a project board, | too, and it's ... pretty good! | | My gig is still in Trello-land and I'd like to move away from | it but companies have a tendency to include biz folks in Trello | whereas Github is scary tech world to a lot of them. | judge2020 wrote: | Worth checking out the new GitHub Issues beta: | https://github.com/features/issues/ | pbiggar wrote: | Signed up for it to use with darklang a few weeks ago but | haven't heard anything - are they adding more people to the | beta? | imbnwa wrote: | > Having to create issues-only repositories seems like a sign | that one may be using the wrong tool. | | JIRA is a pile of bolted-on features, and no one has ever | measured what is essential to project management, so this point | strikes me as sort of an ad populum than an argument that JIRA | or whatever is more fit for some PM task than Github Issues. | | This is what kills me about software project management, at | least in Enterprise where I work: its about _people | consistently communicating to one another_ ; that's it, lest | there's something else we can extract as somehow more | primordial. Somehow people consistently communicating over a | topic has been reified to the point that we mistake the reified | things for the thing-in-itself. | simonw wrote: | I don't see why that's a sign of the wrong tool: if it's OK to | use a GitHub repo for code and not for issues, why not use one | for issues and not for code? | | I drop a single README.md in the root of the repo that links to | the issues and leave it at that. | erhk wrote: | Arguably any tool will eventually be hacked around to fit | needs, unless you are the owner --in which case you just hack | on the tool. | rafaelturk wrote: | That's how we operate: Issues only. Even legal and marketing use | issues. | | ...In their ideal form, GitHub issues are homogenous. An issue is | a task that you need to complete. If it isn't a task, it isn't an | issue. If it's done, it's closed. If it's not done, it's open. | quesodev wrote: | Having run several engineering teams (15-20 people), I used this | approach extensively. It meant one less place to go and one less | tool to use. I liked this approach so much, I also wanted to use | Github Issues for internal and external customer support instead | of having another help desk tool involved. I created | https://hubdesk.io/ as a side project to do this. Forward your | support emails to HubDesk and it creates a Github issue for every | email thread. You can then communicate back and forth with sender | by starting a comment with "@reply" to send a reply email. | codesternews wrote: | Not related but your landing page is good. May I know what | template/how did you build it. Thanks | technics256 wrote: | I'm not OP but I can spot these anywhere now. It's from | www.tailwindui.com | dan-robertson wrote: | I think anything that reduces the number of different places | that information or discussion may happen is good. The thought | of having a mix of code/code review/wiki/other | wiki/email/chat/list archives/jira/shared inbox/trello is not | appealing to me. There's some continuum where adding a system | changes things from good to annoying and I think my own | feelings put that place more towards the "fewer systems" end | than where other people put it. | simonw wrote: | Tool proliferation is definitely a problem, but at larger | organizations I'm not sure how feasible it is to keep | everyone using the same small set of tools. | | At my last large employer I ended up putting together a | custom search engine that searched across a bunch of | different places where important stuff ended up - Google Docs | and GitHub Wikis and Markdown-in-GitHub and Confluence and | Salesforce Support and a mailing list archive and a few | others. | | Having a single place to search really helped: I had thought | that we had bad documentation, but it turned out we actually | had pretty good documentation just distributed across too | many different places. | zikzak wrote: | We used to use Unfuddle for source control and issues/PM | then went to self hosted TFS but kept issues and pm in | Unfuddle. Then we decided that was working so well for Dev, | everyone should use it. But people didn't like Unfuddle. So | now we have Asana. Everyone but Dev likes it, there's no | ticket numbers, and it's confusing but at least the | stakeholders are using it? | royandre wrote: | We have made a solution for assigning task numbers in | Asana. Will prioritize us posting how do add it. | [deleted] | mwcampbell wrote: | HubDesk looks nice. A couple of questions though: | | 1. Would I have control over the "From" name and address for | emails that HubDesk sends to users? | | 2. Do email replies from users get added as comments on the | issue? | | 3. When an issue is created, does HubDesk send a confirmation | to the user so they can do follow-up replies even before the | rep has done an outward-facing reply? | ExtraE wrote: | #1 and 2 are both very important. | pininja wrote: | In case you like this TL;DR, the author expands on their GitHub | practices here https://github.com/tmcw/github-best- | practices#issues--milest... | arendtio wrote: | Funny how Microsoft Project isn't even mentioned, but Excel | instead... | | I still have to come across a project management software that is | delightful and effective at the same time. There are many tools | out there, that do one job very good, but in my opinion, none | that combine planning, execution and evaluation in a modern and | predictive fashion. | bbertelsen wrote: | Apologies for off-topic: Does anyone recognize the blog | platform/theme being used? | bob1029 wrote: | We've been doing this for our product for the last ~4 years. It's | amazing. Getting close to 10000th issue. All the code for the | whole stack lives in the repo too, so the links between | code/pr/issue are flawless. | | I think we still want to build another layer on top that is more | about how our business works, but GH issues would continue be the | one-stop-shop for anything regarding the codebase itself. | agustif wrote: | Linear.app is a great alternative to JIRA and connects also to | Git providers. | robertwt7 wrote: | I actually really liked this approach compared to having to | switch to jira/notion everytime. | | I think some big names are using this approach to right. Like | aspnetcore and some other microsoft products | ac50hz wrote: | +1 Whilst I still use other tools too, Github Issues-only can | help provide useful focus by limiting the options available to | PMs and others. | ttoinou wrote: | Same for me, but with Gitlab Issues ! | christophergs wrote: | Yep, I do the same. I also combine with github wiki for larger | projects and documentation (often these will reference a bunch of | issues). | bredren wrote: | Me too. I haven't tried jamming sales into issues but for | product dev it is all issues and wiki for docs. | | I also use high med low customer impact and low med high | difficulty labels as advocated by yc to organize priority. | erhk wrote: | There are a plethora of reasons not to put sales data into github | issues. I appreciate the idea of reducing complexity. Focusing | things around issue tracking gives a good workflow for opening | and closing, and also provids a finite goal, but theres often | needs which cannot be met. | | I also dont think that its necessary to point out but I would not | advise handing over all business organizing to github as a | platform. | mlosgoodat wrote: | > There are a plethora of reasons not to put sales data into | github issues. | | Thanks for the details. | | Anecdotally; the author of the blog post and work environments | I've been in did just that and ... reality still exists. | | Me thinks personal opinions on how to store data are ... | personal opinions. | simonw wrote: | Is your concern that GitHub employees might access your | confidential sales data if it's in issues in a private | repository? | | Because if you're worried about that, there's probably a whole | bunch of even worse things that they could be doing with access | to your source code, secrets and CI infrastructure. | wereHamster wrote: | > handing over all business organizing to github as a platform. | | GitHub is not the only issue tracker. Git itself is the easiest | to migrate off of GitHub, issues is probably close next. | wingmanjd wrote: | We're planning a migration from Atlassian suite to the Gitlab | ecosystem, but one item that I can't seem to replicate is the | issue/ ticket workflow of a JIRA ticket. We have a semi-involved | workflow that covers most of the software development lifecycle: | initial requirements gathering, approvals, coding development, | code reviews, UAT approvals, prod deployment approvals etc. | | How do you handle this sort of thing with just Git(hub|lab) | issues? | lexs wrote: | Scoped Labels (extended Kanban basically) and different boards | for planning and development is our approach in gitlab | sp1rit wrote: | One issue I still have with github (issues) is, that they only | allow a very small set of file types to be uploaded. | | You can get around this by gzipping everything, because they | allow .gz, however I still don't see why I'm not allowed to | upload .diff or .patch files. | antipaul wrote: | I wish. I'm at Big Corp where key project collaborators and | stakeholders are wildly non technical and there's no way to use | GitHub issues. | | They mostly use only email. | | What is a more accessible alternative? | | I've been trying google docs. Thoughts? | enra wrote: | We have been building https://linear.app which is both used by | technical and non-technical folks | orcasushi wrote: | I am sometimes thinking about use master branch of my repo and | add a folder called 'tickets'. Then in this folder create issues | as markdown files. Use some Vscode, Emacs or Vim plugin to | automatically number these markdown files and present comments as | lists. | | No more dependency on online saas tooling and you can use the | search option of your ide / os / command-line to search through | them. | dreamcompiler wrote: | I'd love to use this approach if only I could save issues in, you | know, git. Which isn't tied to Github. | dboreham wrote: | I've used this approach with success on work projects in the past | and still use it for my "personal kanban". Nice of Microsoft to | provide this facility for free. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-08-21 23:00 UTC)