There's been no mention of phabricator yet so I thought I'd give it a shout out. It's used by LLVM, FreeBSD, Blender, Wikimedia and others and I love it. It's under very active development and even if it doesn't solve every issue in this letter, by using an open source tool for development you of course have the option to customize it to the needs of your community.
Dear GitHub
61–70 of 491 posts
Re: Dear GitHub
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm maintaining a GitLab instance for my team at work and it's been really great for us. I am pretty disappointed that the CE version doesn't include GitLab Pages, though, as that was the one feature I missed most from GitHub and GitLab Enterprise is outside of our budget at this time.
The hosted version at Gitlab.com is running EE, so it'll be just like Github.com is.
I understand, but that's just not an option for us. I don't resent them at all, they've every right to decide which features are restricted to EE licenses, but I can lament it all the same.
Re: Dear GitHub
#63I don't like the general feel of these suggestions. It sounds like more bureaucratic features, the lack of which is a big part of why GitHub is so pleasant.
Making an issue or a pull request feels like having a casual chat with the project maintainers. Adding fields and other hoops to jump through puts distance between people.
Re: Dear GitHub
#64I like GitHub issues as they are. I wouldn't like to force people to adhere to a particular format when reporting problems. I find it strange that some project maintainers get annoyed when people use the issues section to post questions. What's wrong with that? A question can reveal design failures about your software... Maybe if your software was better designed, people wouldn't be asking the question to begin with.…
The request was to allow maintainers to define a template or have the ability to add fields. So the formats would be on a project by project basis.
> Maybe if your software was better designed, people wouldn't be asking the question to begin with.
This is just silly.
Re: Dear GitHub
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
By their very nature, git repos are one of the easiest things to migrate. Simply point at a new remote and push, and that's really it. It means that, unlike many other services, I could see GitHub being completely abandoned almost over night. If something better came along.
You would lose the issues.
You say that like it is a bad thing...
Re: Dear GitHub
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
By their very nature, git repos are one of the easiest things to migrate. Simply point at a new remote and push, and that's really it. It means that, unlike many other services, I could see GitHub being completely abandoned almost over night. If something better came along.
You would lose the issues.
There are lot of tools to migrate them. Example, github.com/babel/babel has migrated their issues to phabricator.babeljs.io
Re: Dear GitHub
#67Bitbucket kills GitHub issues with these two features: - Multiple assignees for an issue - An "Approve" button so that maintainers can stamp a PR with the seal of approval
I just wish that bitbucket's UI was half as smooth as Github. Sure, it's not terrible, but it has a lot of rough edges.
Re: Dear GitHub
#68Re: Dear GitHub
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not bitbucket?
Bitbucket requires payment for larger numbers of collaborators. Github requires payment for private repositories. Open source requires unlimited collaborators, and no one wants to pay.
Public (Open Source) repositories on Bitbucket do not have a limit to the number of contributors.
Re: Dear GitHub
#70Bitbucket kills GitHub issues with these two features: - Multiple assignees for an issue - An "Approve" button so that maintainers can stamp a PR with the seal of approval
Github kills Bitbucket with this one feature: uptime
...and speed in my experience. Both the web UI and push/pull.