Thread

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

364 points · 111 comments · alentred

Izkata · 1790342141 · focus · HN ↗
A few months ago there was another of these posted, called Epiq: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48155570">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48155570
My comment on there is about a surge in popularity of these over a decade ago, with a link to a previous comment about problems I remember them having that prevented them from being usable for most people ( <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47956979">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47956979 ), because of their intended design rather than an implementation issue. For example bullet 3 was a problem in one, that another tried to solve with bullet 2.
I don't have time right now to look at this one to guess if these apply, but might be interesting/useful for someone else.
1. lelanthran · 1790343112 · focus · HN ↗
  Other than the first bullet point in your list[1], my contribution in this regard addresses everything else.
  Don't have a link handy but it's on github called "rotsit" (revenge of the something issue Tracker).
  ‐----‐------
  [1] That's the entire point of having the issue tied to a branch: if an issue is marked resolved in the branch you are looking at, then its resolved in the branch you are looking at. Storing the issues independent of branch means you need to also store extra metadat about which branch it is broken on.
  1. Izkata · 1790353349 · focus · HN ↗
    The issue there was collaboration, one person would be on master and see no hint that a case was already being worked on (status, comments, etc all being different until the branch was merged). The other bullets, that put the information in different locations, were attempts to deal with this.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.