[DaiPlusPlus]

Despite the "Azure" name, Azure DevOps Server (formerly Team Foundation Server), is still a rock-solid on-prem system for git repo hosting, issues/stories/projects, build automation, and the rest - though I feel it has stagnated somewhat, and git integration still feels half-baked compared to TFS's previous SVN-clone, but is still my first-choice for on-prem installs (granted, I'm still wedded to the MSFT stack).

[whoopsie]

ADO is the death knell to collaborative modern teams. Who the f wants to waste their day with that UX and feature set?

[DaiPlusPlus]

> Who the f wants to waste their day with that UX and feature set?

TFS' UX is hardly any worse than Jira's.

BTW, if your complaint is based on your personal experience dealing with hideously complex Issue/Bug form-fields, "areas", and the like, then that's not so-much an issue with TFS/AzureDevOps, but with your PMs, who are the ones responsible for applying customizations to the built-in workflow forms. The stock workflow forms/fields are a (relative) breeze to use compared to Jira, IMO (but GitHub Issues+Projects are better, I agree).

[datadrivenangel]

ADO makes me yearn for Jira because of how slow and clunky it is.

[twisteriffic]

Having been forced to daily drive both for the past few years, I'd take DevOps over Jira any day. Neither is great, but DevOps has had 100% fewer incidents of adding a comment to the wrong issue because of a dog slow UI that's chock full of race conditions.

[WorldMaker]

If you have access to Azure DevOps Server your company likely also has access in its existing plans to GitHub Enterprise (on-prem) as well. GitHub Enterprise is usually about 6 to 9 months behind GitHub "Regular", but that's quite a bit better than Azure DevOps "Regular" which now seems destined to be 2-3 years behind GitHub and however far Azure DevOps Server trails behind that.

Microsoft is still playing "will they/won't they" with killing Azure DevOps for whatever reasons make sense mostly only to themselves, but it is hard not to wonder if the writing is on the wall to migrate to something like GitHub Enterprise sooner rather than later.

(Arguably yes, running GHE is different than Azure DevOps Server, as it is still mostly not Microsoft-stack. But I'm told they package it in a friendly enough way that even companies deep in Microsoft-stack-only don't have too many problems.)

[TheNewsIsHere]

I keep hearing rumors that I can’t corroborate that the decision has already been made to kill Azure DevOps but that there won’t be an announcement until there’s a timeline. I’ve never seen it in black and white. I’ve seen that comment several times on HN, but it’s always so couched that it’s sort of useless.

It seems like one of those rumors that doesn’t die, and then just becomes self-fulfilling if they ever do announce it.

[WorldMaker]

Microsoft's "on the record" voice is always "Azure DevOps is alive and has an active roadmap".

You can read that roadmap for yourself. It is kept in a GitHub repository. Last time I checked this year the last commit was sometime in 2020. The last group of features that loudly launched for Azure DevOps were branded "GitHub Advanced Security for Azure DevOps". (This is where I get the 2-3 years behind GitHub metric.) Microsoft's actions seem to be speaking a lot louder than their "on the record" words.

I've heard from multiple "off the record" sources who are entirely hearsay and I cannot name names that "Yes, of course Azure DevOps is dead."

The best, I can say, as mostly an outsider is that Azure DevOps is at least "undead" and definitely in some sort of zombie state. I've got an unsubstantiated feeling, again as mostly an outsider, that Microsoft is somehow superstitious about Azure DevOps' home office (Microsoft office in North Carolina was founded out of Microsoft's source control dreams) and is afraid to kill it.

[DaiPlusPlus]

I used to work at Microsoft, though I left a few years before MS purchased GitHub. Post-2010s, Microsoft was still migrating many products away from Perforce/SourceDepot and into TFS, and then TFS+git around ~2015. Microsoft hacked TFS to be a git server so they could continue to use TFS for work-item/project-tracking (and no-one wanted to go back to Product Studio). That’s TFS’ strength, as far as Microsoft is concerned, because git hosting is a trivially fungible feature here - whereas GitHub’s Issues only works well for small teams and really doesn’t scale to projects on the scale of Windows or Office.

…but I’ve noticed that GitHub’s recently (since 2020?) has really being fleshing-out their Projects/Issues - it’s not quite as flexible as TFS/AzDO’s Work-Items but on-track to reach parity in a few more years, I reckon.

So that’s my pet-theory: eventually GitHub (and GitHub Enterprise) will reach “good-enough” parity with AzDO for Issues/Work-Items/Project management - and as soon as that happens I fully expect AzDO to die an unceremonious death (because MS doesn’t want to spook the many Enterprise(TM) customers who still bankroll it). We may-or-may-not see some improvement in AzDO-to-GitHub migration tooling, as that that comes down to what side of the bed the Director of the ALM team woke up on that morning.

[WorldMaker]

Yeah, GitHub Projects/Issues have picked up a lot of "features" that only a (Microsoft) PM could love. Many of them don't even light up unless you are in a paid organization (or GitHub Enterprise) (not just a paid account, but a paid organization) so probably a lot of GitHub users probably don't even realize how much GitHub now has feature "parity" with Jira or AzDO. (Nor how quickly that has happened.)

I'm mostly aware of it from GitHub Universe and Microsoft BUILD demonstration videos. Both of which give me a lot of signals that Microsoft internally has moved a lot faster to GitHub than it did from predecessors to TFS/TFS+git. Some of the teams talking about it are huge ones (both in terms of size but also in terms of weight internal/external to the company).

From their own hype videos in the virtual sides of the two conferences, I certainly get the impression they reached "good enough" feature "parity" with AzDO Work Items internally a year or two ago, at least. That doesn't seem like the reason they keep saying AzDO is still alive.

I do realize that AzDO has some big enough Enterprise customers though that not spooking them can be a big reason for the weird messaging despite their overt actions and all the subtle hints that AzDO is dead. But also, my understanding is that many of those customers don't entirely care if a migration needs to happen so long as they are given a migration with a far enough out deadline. [1] I know some companies seem to be acting more spooked that there isn't a deadline yet for AzDO's shutdown. (It was a factor in my last employer migrating to Atlassian's terrible products for everything but repository hosting after years in AzDO [after years in Bitbucket and Atlassian's terrible products and hating them; vicious cycle].)

I obviously don't know what Microsoft is truly waiting for at this point to kill AzDO, which gets back to that feeling that it is something fundamentally weirder such as a superstition.

[1] Case in point: no one seems to be shouting too much about the crazy Azure AD to Entra shenanigans because it has dates and timelines! The timelines don't even make sense: among other things, Azure AD B2B and Azure AD B2C both get marketed as "deprecated" months before their Entra counterparts are expected to leave "Beta" or "Preview" statuses and even more months before automated migration tools are expected to be available. But it is all a planned migration and that makes all the difference.