I wonder if Gitea will add a Discussion feature similar to Github. This could map nicely to Lemmy like groups via ActivityPub.
As for federated issue tracking… That could get spammy really fast if it is made compatible with Mastodon etc. Probably not the best idea. However, federated PRs with comments could be useful.
I think both are features that are still well off for later. First Gitea will federate with itself. But they are good points. There are so many opportunities, and so many ways to implement them. Issues might become follower-only toots, for those following a project.
The tests I have seen them working on were with Mastodon, not inter Gitea, but that might have been just to rule out implementation issues to ensure general compatibility.
I passed a link to your comment to the matrix chatroom, and the person who likely wrote the text you had seen responded:
The issues themselves are represented using the standard AP Note type, but Mastodon doesn’t seem to understand what ForgeFed tickets are iirc. Since Gitea doesn’t have threads, I guess one solution could be to render Mastodon-generated comments as quote replies on Gitea.
There was more discussion on supporting threading after that comment.
I think the github discussion feature is completely useless. It is basically issues again, but worse … and now we have two places where users open issues.
Yeah, I can imagine people do not like the separation. But I also agree it makes sense. If you some of the discussions on issues, esp. when dealing with larger chunks of functionality or controversial features. These issues remain open, and hence ‘on the backlog’ eternally. And that may affect the workflow (or even how people perceive the project, e.g. such as those with thousands of open issues). Issues and Discussions have different commenting UI also, where the latter is threaded.
An issues is usually a bug report or similar, not a feature discussion etc. Depending on the outcome of the discussion you then create an issue or a PR/feature branch.
See, I don’t see any reasons why a feature discussion shouldn’t be an issue. “Issue” is just a fancy name for “Discussion”, isn’t it? So basically, these are all some kind of linear or tree-style discussion of some specific topic. There’s nothing more to it, is there?
So I don’t see why they should be seperate at all. Differentiation can be done via tags, labels, … or whatever you’d like to call it. That’s there already of course.
Issues are supposed to be like tickets. They come from issue tracking systems. They have a clearly defined life cycle of opening and closing them.
If you mix them with general discussions your entire project cycle management system breaks as you can’t have clear milestones etc. with forever open “issues” that are not issues but discussions.
If you mix them with general discussions your entire project cycle management system breaks as you can’t have clear milestones etc. with forever open “issues” that are not issues but discussions.
I don’t see why an issue must be assigned to a milestone, so I don’t see how an issue can break any lifecycle.
How an issue is used in a development project is “it depends”. Whatever the chosen and preferred method of the maintainers is. If you really want a concise backlog with concrete stuff, and no “pie in the sky” musings on future major extensions, then Discussion section can be very handy. If you don’t use discussions, you may end in a situation where off-topic’ish issues sit in the backlog like forever, and pile up.
I wonder if Gitea will add a Discussion feature similar to Github. This could map nicely to Lemmy like groups via ActivityPub.
As for federated issue tracking… That could get spammy really fast if it is made compatible with Mastodon etc. Probably not the best idea. However, federated PRs with comments could be useful.
I think both are features that are still well off for later. First Gitea will federate with itself. But they are good points. There are so many opportunities, and so many ways to implement them. Issues might become follower-only toots, for those following a project.
The tests I have seen them working on were with Mastodon, not inter Gitea, but that might have been just to rule out implementation issues to ensure general compatibility.
I passed a link to your comment to the matrix chatroom, and the person who likely wrote the text you had seen responded:
There was more discussion on supporting threading after that comment.
I think the github discussion feature is completely useless. It is basically issues again, but worse … and now we have two places where users open issues.
Thanks for nothing, github.
Hmm to be honest I have not used Github discussions much, but it seems to make sense to separate issue tracking from general development discussions.
Yeah, I can imagine people do not like the separation. But I also agree it makes sense. If you some of the discussions on issues, esp. when dealing with larger chunks of functionality or controversial features. These issues remain open, and hence ‘on the backlog’ eternally. And that may affect the workflow (or even how people perceive the project, e.g. such as those with thousands of open issues). Issues and Discussions have different commenting UI also, where the latter is threaded.
How? Isn’t general development discussion actually an issue? If a discussion comes to a point and gets implemented, it is essentially an issue,…
An issues is usually a bug report or similar, not a feature discussion etc. Depending on the outcome of the discussion you then create an issue or a PR/feature branch.
Usually? And when it is not?
See, I don’t see any reasons why a feature discussion shouldn’t be an issue. “Issue” is just a fancy name for “Discussion”, isn’t it? So basically, these are all some kind of linear or tree-style discussion of some specific topic. There’s nothing more to it, is there?
So I don’t see why they should be seperate at all. Differentiation can be done via tags, labels, … or whatever you’d like to call it. That’s there already of course.
You don’t seem to be a developer :)
Issues are supposed to be like tickets. They come from issue tracking systems. They have a clearly defined life cycle of opening and closing them.
If you mix them with general discussions your entire project cycle management system breaks as you can’t have clear milestones etc. with forever open “issues” that are not issues but discussions.
I have been a developer for over 10 years now.
I don’t see why an issue must be assigned to a milestone, so I don’t see how an issue can break any lifecycle.
How an issue is used in a development project is “it depends”. Whatever the chosen and preferred method of the maintainers is. If you really want a concise backlog with concrete stuff, and no “pie in the sky” musings on future major extensions, then Discussion section can be very handy. If you don’t use discussions, you may end in a situation where off-topic’ish issues sit in the backlog like forever, and pile up.
@musicmatze @poVoq
The Github Discusions is relatively new feature they added. I did not see many projects yet that are very actively using it.