[IshKebab]

> don't come anywhere close to Jira level functionality.

In my experience that's probably a good thing. I've moved from a company using Phabricator to one using Jira. Phabricator had exactly everything we needed and was very nicely designed and worked really nicely.

Jira has everything you need plus loads of other stuff that project managers feel like they need to add. Oh and they'll never clear anything up or fix any config bugs because they don't actually have to ever use the "report bug" form so who cares if there are 100 fields and half of the mandatory ones are hidden in "More fields"? 5 different states for "TODO"? Eh who cares. 3 different ways to say which team a bug is in? Better fill them all in for every bug.

It's better to be missing features than to have features that project managers can configure.

[CamouflagedKiwi]

I've used both as well, I found Phabricator fine for lightweight kanban-style team work tracking, but once we had PMs it was doomed because it would never do what they wanted (they didn't seem to be able to understand that it was not a Scrum system and would never match well).

These days I'd be using Github instead, issues there are also nice and simple. I imagine it would ultimately suffer the same fate in a similar situation though (not that I intend to get there ever again).

The problem with Jira is that it's so customisable and always ends up being customised by "process people" who think all problems can be solved by adding just one more field - but simultaneously it's never possible to customise your bit to work the way you want.

[jay_kyburz]

The first bug you should log is that the bug logging page has unnecessary fields.