21–30 of 81 posts
People who like Jira (or rather want; I doubt one ever “needs” this thing), and make decisions on its implementation and payment, and force it on others, are not the people who are shopping for alternatives. So who these alternatives are really for?
As I use claude more and more I've started using git worktrees, one branch per worktree per PR, with possibly multiple agents working in each worktree at the same time on different aspects. And I manually instruct those agents. Like Emdash/Cursor/Zed. Sometimes I review code locally, sometimes agents push and I review in GitHub, no clear system yet. (jj seems promising, but Zed doesn't seem to support jj as well as git, so have delayed looking at it.)
But Paca is hinting in another direction where the agents are more in control of the branches/worktrees to use and are created by the agent? What tooling is used to support such flows? Would people use GitHub with Paca or is GitHub redundant as well.
Glad to I'm not the only one thinking about moving away from Jira
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we can consider this among the positive consequences of LLMs. Building software is cheaper, you don’t have anymore to adapt your company processes to the tools available in the market. If you don’t find what you’re looking for, you can build it and actually see if there’s a market interest for it.
Aren't we losing something there too though. I always respected a company with a product that had "things figured out" and pushed their product in conjunction with a way of working that was well researched and proven to be optimized. I'm not convinced companies always need software tailored to their workflows, and could benefit from adopting worn-path workflows instead.
I’m dubious, because for an established company the question is whether the software adapts to the org, or if the org adapts to the software. It’s a lot harder to change the workflow of a whole company than to buy software that enables your current workflow. There’s months of retraining and figuring out where compliance goes in the new workflow, and things that get done wrong along the way because it’s new, and etc.
You need a pretty big efficiency win to offset the dead weight of time spent just changing workflows.
People who like Jira (or rather want; I doubt one ever “needs” this thing), and make decisions on its implementation and payment, and force it on others, are not the people who are shopping for alternatives. So who these alternatives are really for?
This looks great for me. Better than what I have, smaller/cheaper/more AI focused than Jira.
People who like Jira (or rather want; I doubt one ever “needs” this thing), and make decisions on its implementation and payment, and force it on others, are not the people who are shopping for alternatives. So who these alternatives are really for?
PM says "we're going to start using Jira", engineer says "how about we use this thing that looks similar but is not as terrible as Jira?"
What are people's workflows these days? As I use claude more and more I've started using git worktrees, one branch per worktree per PR, with possibly multiple agents working in each worktree at the same time on different aspects. And I manually instruct those agents. Like Emdash/Cursor/Zed. Sometimes I review code locally, sometimes agents push and I review in GitHub, no clear system yet. (jj seems promising, but Zed…
This is what I did with this project https://github.com/crmkit/crmkit/ and to be honest the approach grows on me and fits well if you are a backend person.