[SOLAR_FIELDS]

It’s simply very early on in the endless lifecycle of project management:

Simple kanban is great! It’s simple! Okay, new users, new feature requests. Wow now I’ve got a really robust product but still it only solves problems for maybe 30% of people. Let’s add more! Eventually we have converged to Jira and instead of doing a few things really well we now do everything poorly. At this point you’ve probably got enough cargo culted corporate bureaucrats using your product to survive for quite awhile as you ride the wave of revenue into the slow tide of mediocrity. Then the death and rebirth as the new starry eyed project management tool begins as YetAnotherTrelloClone

[post-it]

Tbf Jira is great, you just need a project manager with good opinions that sets it up and maintains it well. It turns out project management is a real skill and not a hat you put on the owner's less favourite sons.

[eddyg]

Jira excels when there is a Jira governance committee comprised of people who actually understand data flow and are the only ones with admin privileges.

Too often some manager asks for (and is given) admin access and starts “improving” things.

Sure, anybody can create custom fields and screens and slap together a janky “workflow”, but well-oiled Jira Ops prevent an explosion of custom fields, they curate the create, browse and edit screens of each issue type to only show the fields that are important at that stage, use custom screens on workflow transitions along with validators and conditions to help ensure an issue is always in a reasonable state, etc. Then users don’t complain about the tooling.

But Jira governance takes time, effort, discussions with stakeholders, etc. And without it Jira gets a bad rap.

[themgt]

Jira excels when there is a Jira governance committee

True but oversimplified. Without a Jira administrative state, along with of course democratically elected Jira executive and legislature and a duly appointed Jira Supreme Court, Jira governance committees over time tend to slide into self-dealing, tyranny and eventually mass executions of anti-Jira resistance factions.

Sustaining Jira regime legitimacy over time is far more involved than simply a governance committee with its stakeholder discussions and five year plans for new custom fields.

[sidewndr46]

Even when that happens, if you democratically elect a socialist governance committee you may suddenly find yourself liberated from your electoral duties by the USA

[physicsguy]

My current company has company managed boards, 6000 devs and we have about 250 custom fields. I work in a research team and we only need Kanban and I can't change the issue type if something is created. Hell.

[wombat-man]

Yeah, jira is very flexible. A well managed jira can be pretty great

[SOLAR_FIELDS]

The great thing about Jira is that it can do anything. The problem with Jira is that it can do anything

[darkteflon]

Notion: “Hold my beer.”

[mock-possum]

> you just need a project manager

That’s the real trick.

[ngrilly]

Jira's UX is crap. Try Linear.app, which is truly great software, equally appreciated by both software engineers and project/product managers using it.

[post-it]

Is this an ad? I've never heard of this and the website tries really hard to be an Apple product launch instead of showing what the tool looks like with 200 tasks on the board.

[SOLAR_FIELDS]

I've used it at previous places of work. It's nice. Snappier and better looking than Jira at least. One of the previous advantages of using it is that everything has a keyboard shortcut, so if you learned that you could be very efficient with it. Nowadays, however, when an LLM is shuffling my tickets around, that feature is kind of useless and I'd probably prefer Jira simply because they integrate with everything under the sun

[ngrilly]

Not an ad at all. I've been using Linear for the past 4 years. Been using Jira, Trello, GitHub Issues, and other issue trackers before. Linear is simply incredibly better compared to Jira. I had tons of colleagues in my current team and former teams who were skeptical at first, tried it, and 2 weeks later wre saying they would never come back to Jira. I've seen many similar comments here on HN over the past few years.

[Quarrelsome]

People can sell me layers ontop of JIRA but you can't position yourself to replace it, too much already integrates with JIRA and if you're not a startup then its a political cliff edge to try to make a case to replace JIRA.

[KronisLV]

> Eventually we have converged to Jira and instead of doing a few things really well we now do everything poorly.

Is a system that does everything within its scope well not conceivable? If it is, does systems ending up like Jira come as a result of scope creep and gradual evolution (not designing the whole thing up front with its admittedly huge scope), not enough development effort or just wanting to ship things soon instead of spending 5 years making the damn thing be good? And then, how do we get there - a Jira killer, that’d be as good as Linux (or maybe BSD) is to OSes? It’s weird that project management has either small focused tools or big ones that are also bad in a variety of ways.

[piva00]

A system that does too much is complex almost by definition, with complexity you introduce conflicts between features that need to be resolved through design, designing for multiple interactions of conflicting features is neigh impossible.

The combinatorial of interactions between many features will inevitably create unresolvable edge-cases that need to be patched over, either hidden away or by tacking on more complexity so the user can control how these edge-cases should be solved for their own workflow.

There is no way to do such design upfront, you can only upfront what you can think and reason about. That's how all projects start, and their demise is exactly from realising "oh, we don't cover this flow, maybe we should have a feature for that". Taking all these learnings and applying to a new system that has more design upfront starts to verge on Second System problem.

Linux is also full of cruft, it's good enough but I don't think you should live with the impression that is a benchmark of software quality. It's still impressive but as any complex system it has many issues from legacy.