Thread

Git-bug: Distributed, offline-first bug tracker embedded in Git

364 points · 111 comments · alentred

teddyh · 1790342961 · focus · HN ↗
Just for those people for whom this might be a new concept: There is actually a fair number of these distributed bug trackers: <<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22833037">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22833037>
1. mcepl · 1790344918 · focus · HN ↗
  And none of them actually work really well. This blog post is over ten years old, but the situation didn’t improve much <a href="https://matej.ceplovi.cz/blog/current-state-of-the-distributed-issue-tracking.html" rel="nofollow">https://matej.ceplovi.cz/blog/current-state-of-the-distribut...
  1. gritzko · 1790348053 · focus · HN ↗
    Hits hard.
    I looked into them. Most of them use some CRDT-ish machinery to merge concurrent ticket changes. (Fixing merge conflicts in tickets would be too disappointing.) As a CRDT person, I noticed that implementing CRDT merges in git itself mostly makes that machinery unnecessary. Then you can keep your tickets in plain Markdown, having CRDT merges for both code and metadata. I have it working here btw
    <a href="https://replicated.live/blog/meta" rel="nofollow">https://replicated.live/blog/meta
    mdrcode · 1790351277 · focus · HN ↗
    Well written blog post! I enjoyed reading it.
    xeubie · 1790363597 · focus · HN ↗
    There is an alternative to auto-resolution or fixing low-level git merge conflicts. In my git forge Haxy, I am detecting conflicts in local-first metadata and allowing you to fix them in the UI. This is possible because I am not doing a line-based merge; the issues are stored as a data structure, so I can see what specific parts are in conflict. This allows a much nicer form of conflict resolution than conflict markers in a text file. I demoed this here: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkGUARj5Wdw" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkGUARj5Wdw and here's the project: <a href="https://github.com/xit-vcs/haxy" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/xit-vcs/haxy
  2. iamnothere · 1790352614 · focus · HN ↗
    No mention of Fossil, which works great and proves that the difficulty is in gathering dev interest.
    It may be that the presence of Fossil as a mature option is enough to dissuade people from choosing/working on alternatives. I’m pleased to see git-bug slowly making progress though, maybe it will get there in time.
    vips7L · 1790358173 · focus · HN ↗
    Thanks for reminding me of Fossil. I've been developing something locally and keeping track of things in a text file.
    int_19h · 1790381661 · focus · HN ↗
    Fossil is very opinionated about some things, in particular, the inability to rewrite history, which makes it a non-option for some. So there's still a niche for Git-based distributed bug tracking.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.