Hacker News Reader

Comment by dotBen | Hacker News Reader

Anyone care to give their thoughts on GitHub Issues 2.0 vs Pivotal Tracker?

(sorry, I know question-in-a-question is a little poor form, but I only really care for the opinions of the HN community on this rather than asking more widely)

View on HN

I haven't used Pivotal, although I understand Pivotal is more of an agile project management tool. It measures burn down rates, velocity etc... even if it does do issue tracking as part of that, it's probably not reasonable to compare.

A like-for-like issue tracker would be Jira or Lighthouse

Indeed Pivotal Tracker and Github Issues focuses on two different things - Pivotal is about planning, Github Issues is more like a registry. They may actually complement each other although I haven't checked if Pivotal provides integration with Github Issues already (it certainly does with Jira and Lighthouse).

I think this is a pretty good point to bring up the comparison. I can definitely see github ousting many software dev tracking tools in the years to come. Very interesting...

GitHub should consider adding planning and velocity tracking tools if they really want to unseat Pivotal or other "Feature Planning" tools. I'd switch in a heartbeat just as a means of consolidating my tools.

If you want something for real planning of future development it doesn't look like issues 2.0 really fills that need.

That's unfortunate because issues 2.0 is nice for what it does but pivotal also does issue tracking in a way that is really well integrated into my overall work planning. Using both probably doesn't make much sense.

So although these features look nice by themselves, I think I'll continue to not use github's issue tracking in favor of tracker.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com