Azure DevOps Server, née Visual Studio Team System, already exists.
I have seen some people fawning over tools like Asana but in my usage I just found it fancier and slower than Jira.
Personally, as a developer I find GitHub issues to be good enough.
I left that job and for awhile working at places using different ticketing systems, hearing complaints on places like HN about Jira, and wishing for features those other systems were missing. A few years ago I started at a place that used the cloud hosted Jira at a much smaller company (with an enthusiastic lead who likely tweaked the setup himself). It was a much, much worse experience. It was horribly slow and I guess they had focused on "management" features that made a normal ticket process annoying and confusing (it may have been how it was configured). Reading around I think the horrible performance was because of scaling architecture decisions that Atlassian made, which I heard they've at least acknowledged and are addressing. I gasped when I saw this headline they plan to drop local hosting before getting cloud performance issues behind them.
I do know that getting put in the jira team is one of the least fun parts of working for atlassian.
I wish we had something even half as good as Jira.
Given the option, I will always push for Jira, and associated Atlassian products.
Why has this had adds playing every time I turn my radio on for the last 2 years as well..?
I'm not the previous commenter, but I also have a similar 30+ years experience, and I've used quite a lot of project management software. I've seen Jira used poorly, and used quite efficiently for managing projects. My current job uses Jira and nobody in the company has ever expressed anything negative about Jira, and it's become quite nice to use. But again, I have seen some companies absolutely fail at Jira. YMMV.
I think the reason you like it is exactly the reason a lot of people hate it.
JIRA in its default state is fairly sane. People who hate it, usually with a white-hot burning passion, really hate the ham-fisted customisations their own organisation has done to it.
JIRA sucks, but it sucks compared to more lightweight tools and the modern aesthetic
It outperforms previous tracking tools like bugzilla, trac, or those proprietary piles of crap like the "Rational" tools
I've used JIRA at multiple workplaces and really enjoy it. I like Github issues and Trello for my personal task/issue tracking but I don't think they're suitable for more complex projects.
In this thread there's people saying that inability to host on prem is an absolute blocker for them, for others they have zero problems with their data being SaaS-hosted. Some people need deep analytics to measure how their team is doing and they can meet deliverables, and some people could care less. Some people have 10+ workflow stages with tons of rules, some people are fine with Todo / in progress / done.
If you have a small team and dont really care about reporting, Trello is probably a great option for you.
If you want reporting, but are willing to work with a somewhat prescribed workflow / process, across a few teams at most, clubhouse or pivotal tracker are great.
If you need full control and flexibility, and are willing to give up some ease of use and speed, JIRA probably is your best bet.
In the place I worked at with quality there was a multi page document on how to file a ticket. It was a nightmare.
Congratulations, according to Google you are the first person on the internet ever to use that phrase. Indeed only the second ever to string the last four of those words together.
> There are two kinds of programming languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses.
JIRA is the C++ of project management software. It works. It has worked forever. It is easy to shoot yourself in the foot but a savvy operator can't be beat. It's unwieldy at first but gives you all the power to build a really sophisticated and efficient process.
This is just... wow.
Every Microsoft shop I've ever worked at defaults to Azure. You need a really good reason to use GCP or AWS for anything, and it's an uphill battle. They're already paying licensing fees to Microsoft, there are incentives and discounts to stay within the ecosystem. My current employer has GitHub Enterprise and we still use DevOps for a lot of stuff, especially anything that business stakeholders have to touch.
If you talk to a Microsoft rep, they “recommend github enterprise for new projects”.
Microsoft obviously cares about backwards compatibility, and there is no way to currently migrate your stuff.
So... it’s not going to happen tomorrow, but it is going to happen.
...and no, it doesn’t have the nice clickops UI from devops: but that’s legacy now in favour of the multistage yaml pipelines.
You can close your eyes and cross your fingers and say Azure Devops will Be around forever... but, you’d be wrong.
(1) Github Enterprise, the alternative suggested, is a Microsoft product (Github is Microsoft), not GCP or AWS. Given the way Microsoft seems to be investing and promoting products, seeing Github Enterprise as having more legs than Azure DevOps is completely reasonable. (And I'm the one who introduced Azure DevOps into the discussion.)
(2) I work for what has historically been an enterprise Microsoft shop; our cloud transition, except for some use of Github and Azure AD, been primarily AWS-based.
Same here for the MS shops I work with; actually no Azure at all.
The amount of bugs i encountered is.. Bad. From not starting build agents, to stopped agents to hanging etc etc etc..
That said: i looooove the docker container concept for builders :)
I think this is on purpose to push people to the clould offering.