51–60 of 193 posts
I've been test driving Plane for a bit and mostly like it!
That does look like a pure copy of Linear UI wise
> “But what are GitHub stars?” This is weird. It’s almost as if this is a sales pitch to non-technical management who gets to make the executive decision on what issue tracker to use. That’s almost antithetical to “by engineers, for engineers” If this project is driven by commercial interests, then the open-source spirit, if any, isn’t genuine and won’t stick around once VCs want the bait-and-switch. Edit: the blog p…
I read it as addressing the “who cares about stars” that I have whenever someone mentions stars. So it was like a developer saying “I know stars are a dumb and imperfect way to judge a project, but here’s what it is.” If they hadn’t written this I would think they put too much weight on what’s really not a very important measure.
All of the contributors on this project are from the country that feeds to Infosys. I’ve seen enough inflated resumes from candidates who couldn’t write a loop despite having a masters degree. Ironically, the one candidate from this country I gave raving recommendations for was the one who had bad school grades. This country is also a hotbed for clickfarms and selling fake social media engagement/reviews.
Okay it's open source but self-hosting it is not straightforward. The repo's self-hosting doc link returns a 404. Then after manually finding https://docs.plane.so/self-hosting/self-hosting , I am warned that there is a dizzying array of 4 env files. I suppose they are in a tricky situation, in that while they want to stand out as open source, actually having people easily self-host it, is perhaps, not a goal that is…
`docker compose` is correct for the newer (still pretty old) plugin based version of docker compose. `docker-compose` is the older standalone version. https://docs.docker.com/compose/reference/
Okay it's open source but self-hosting it is not straightforward. The repo's self-hosting doc link returns a 404. Then after manually finding https://docs.plane.so/self-hosting/self-hosting , I am warned that there is a dizzying array of 4 env files. I suppose they are in a tricky situation, in that while they want to stand out as open source, actually having people easily self-host it, is perhaps, not a goal that is…
They suddenly mention nginx in the self hosting docs - why?!
I don't understand open source projects that required you to fiddle around with scripts, environment files, reverse proxies etc to try the platform out! docker compose up should "just work" ™.
I will try this out as a tool to manage my private tasks. I always wanted something like Jira for my personal life.
That sounds really dystopian. Akin to having a Scrum standup with the kids each morning before school. Do you mean personal programming projects or in general?
Why should I be the only one to suffer through these ceremonies, might as well indoctrinate the family.
The goal here is to look at something that tells an organisation why chnages to a codebase occurred. Each individual commit can have a nice explanation (in a given human language) of why that specific change occurred. But how does one link other commits, dozens or hundreds or orders of magnitude more.
Can they be accounted for to investors, auditors, regulators?
But equally demanding that commits link to something that links to why, it demands that the rest of the business also link to that something (ie JIRA) so they can explain why they expended time and effort
JIRA or whatever ticketing system, will slowly become the central repository of justification for expense - a great position sure, but also dangerous.
Following on, having some repository of why - of cost drivers - forces not just the software developers but the whole business to justify its activity against the repository. This seems hugely similar to lawyers billing by the 15 minute increment, and indeed a git repo will provide good billing like data too !
But the issue still exists - if I say my activity links to ticket number 1234, then we have a hierarchy (?) of what 1234 links to. The smacks of stories and epics and the whole agile package, but is also a common accounting process
my issue is that this is a neat, backwards looking explanation for what was done. It's not a good way to manage forwards.
And often I find the problem is people wanting to use JIRAs tickets to manage what will be done, not account for what has been done
I'm all for open source task trackers, but the UI in most parts is a rip off of Linear.
Not copying existing ideas is the strangest thing to me. What is the point of spending months trying to come up with an original design, instead of just taking a proven design and improving on it / customizing it to your companies virtues? In the fintech space I've seen so many startups hire designers to come up with original new designs and user experiences, only to arrive at the exact same design as existing fintec…
Okay it's open source but self-hosting it is not straightforward. The repo's self-hosting doc link returns a 404. Then after manually finding https://docs.plane.so/self-hosting/self-hosting , I am warned that there is a dizzying array of 4 env files. I suppose they are in a tricky situation, in that while they want to stand out as open source, actually having people easily self-host it, is perhaps, not a goal that is…
Spent 10 minutes trying to get it running locally, couldn't. They suddenly mention nginx in the self hosting docs - why?! I don't understand open source projects that required you to fiddle around with scripts, environment files, reverse proxies etc to try the platform out! docker compose up should "just work" ™.
Your Plane instance isn't ready yet Ask your Instance Admin to complete set-up first.
With nothing in the docs about this.
> “But what are GitHub stars?” This is weird. It’s almost as if this is a sales pitch to non-technical management who gets to make the executive decision on what issue tracker to use. That’s almost antithetical to “by engineers, for engineers” If this project is driven by commercial interests, then the open-source spirit, if any, isn’t genuine and won’t stick around once VCs want the bait-and-switch. Edit: the blog p…
What do you prefer? A software whose UI and workflow are good for upper management but a PITA for engineers, or a software "by engineers, for engineers" which has some sales pitch/material that can be appealing to upper management, who ultimately makes the decision to shell out the money?
37signals and BaseCamp built products that works for their own processes based on their experience as a software team. They productized it and sold it. I’m not contesting that the product couldn’t be sold.
The issue here is bring driven by growth engagement, giving this impression that it’s about listening to the community. My cynism is that that they don’t care about what makes most sense for the product, but what drives engagement. You can argue what drives engagement is best for the users. That idea is good in theory, but in practice trying to satisfy everyone’s need you will end up not serving any use case well. Go, atleast Go 1, make explicit trade offs that made many people dislike it, but it kept the language simple and excelled at its intended use case.
At any rate, I am cynical that the project here is driven by developer interest as much as it is about impressing VCs.