[vundercind]

Noooooo! I’ve been hoping for years and years to eventually land on a team that uses GH issues so I can not hate our ticket tracker for once, but they’re gonna shit it up like ADO and Jira and Asana before that can happen. They’d already made it borderline too complicated, this will complete the transition from productivity to “legibility”.

[lars_francke]

Just to add a different opinion: I have been using Jira my whole life and I am now using GitHub issues full-time and I like it a lot, I also like these new changes and I'm looking forward to even more to dependencies between issues.

https://github.com/github/roadmap/issues/956

I understand that this is your opinion but there are others out there with differing ones :)

[zamalek]

Couldn't agree more. Creating taxonomies has to be a dopamine hack or something, because humans will spend hours and hours on them. They will be left feeling rewarded and accomplished, despite accomplishing very little. It's playing Solitaire in a way that keeps your boss happy.

[bluGill]

This is the constant problem with issue trackers. You start simple and over a few years various people have legitimate needs that the system isn't solving so they make some small changes to work better. Then one day you look and realize the system is far too complex so you start over with a simple system - which of course doesn't meet the needs of the people above and so they slowly get that complexity added back. I've seen it over an over again, and I expect to see it again because what I need is a simple system, but there are other parties who need various complex things that I can't keep track of.

The simplification above isn't all bad - you often discover that 25% of the complexity in the system isn't needed anymore and so that doesn't come back. However there is always new/different complexity needed.

[tuespetre]

i have always admired GitHub's issues system for its simplicity.

s/have/had/

[medstrom]

If it turns out to be too complex, Codeberg and SourceHut are some actually nice alternatives that exist now. Not like GitLab which brought its own complexity.

[voidfunc]

This was inevitable. Microsoft probably doesn't want to support both Azure DevOps and GitHub long term. GitHub needs to gain the most important features of ADO that ADO customers care about.

[xnorswap]

ADO has felt borderline abandoned since MS bought GitHub, and honestly good riddance, it feels terrible to use.

For example having more than 1 user edit anything is almost unsupported, and pages will regularly do things such as telling you that you ought to refresh to see changes, rather than just showing you the changes.

Or on other pages, anyone elsewhere changing anything at all will just trigger your page to refresh so you lose your place. This is particularly noticable on the sprint board, where if you view "all expanded" or "all collapsed", the refresh will often also reset that and throw you to a completely different part of the board.

The code review is even worse, despite some modest attempts at improvements, because you can't stage a batch of comments. Each and every comment is hand-delivered with a notification email to the recipient, so writing out a bunch of comments feels like a disruptive activity.

Overall the experience of ADO is horrible.

[smileybarry]

As long as they don't add workflows, we're safe.

[Hamuko]

Love to drag my Jira ticket through like three different approval stages, none of which are relevant to my team.

[petepete]

They kind of have them already in GitHub Projects.