| I strongly disagree. You can't easily have conversations about issues in Git and even if you could do you really want to have a commit for each message? I'm aware of some systems that try to tack issue tracking onto Git in a similar way to Fossil, but they just aren't as good as a proper issue tracker. That said, Jira is a terrible issue tracker. I do not understand how it is so bad given that it is literally its only job. I used Phabricator for issue tracking in my previous company and it was so far ahead of Jira... It makes no sense. Something as basic as parent/child issues is barely implemented in Jira. You can only have 2 levels of hierarchy. You can't put a task in your sprint unless it matches the task filter for that sprint, which means you can't easily track the work of people that work on multiple projects. You can't even put tasks from multiple projects into one sprint. Realistically you should have a single project for everything. They haven't even got basic stuff like "refresh the page when information on it changes" working. And that's before you even get to the core flaw of Jira which is that it encourages product managers to overcomplicate it. But just because Jira is awful doesn't mean issue trackers in general are. Phabricator's is great. GitHub and Gitlab are basic but decent. I haven't got experience with any others but I'm sure there are great ones. |
You get 3 levels if you include Epic (Epic > Task > Subtask).
You can set up a sprint/kanban board filter to cover multiple projects, so this does actualy gives you multiple projects per sprint.
I do agree that it's slow and doesn't update itself to reflect changes.
The two groups of people who hate Jira the most are (1) those who can't get it to work how they want it to and (2) those who have to deal with someone else's mad/broken custom workflow.