Hacker News Reader

Comment by danpalmer | Hacker News Reader

The one thing I think GitHub is missing is a solid, well thought out bug/project/ticket management system. Issues is too basic, and Projects are only really collections of Issues.

I think GitLab's issue tracker has a lot of usability issues, but it fits the template of an issue tracker (mostly defined by Jira) much better. For those selecting a new platform for a large project or organisation, I can completely understand GitLab's issue tracker being a safer bet than GitHub.

View on HN

I actually really appreciate GitHub issues for its simplicity: just a list of issues that need addressing. I found most more "advanced" systems to be much harder to use and get an overview of things, especially with larger projects. I found that "just a list of things" with some labels usually works best both from a programmer's and from a management perspective.

What could be simpler than having to press "Show More" 20 times because you can't Ctrl-F what you're looking for? Especially in larger project, as you say.

You mean in large discussions some comments being hidden? It's not my favourite feature either, no. I'm not saying it's perfect or that I wouldn't change things, just that I appreciate its simplicity vs. a more complex system.

I would say GitHub is also missing CI. After having worked with GitHub Actions I cannot say I am impressed. It feels more like an MVP than a real CI system. It also as frequent outages.

I ported a lot of stuff from Jenkins and CircleCI to GitHub Actions, as well as building an iOS build/release pipeline with Actions, and honestly I don't understand this criticism.

I find Actions to have a maturity far beyond how long it has existed for, with very strong primitives that compose better than anything else I've seen.

GitLab CI always felt to me like it was a minor improvement over Travis, and that they hadn't yet realised that complex CI trends towards general compute orchestration. I found it hard to achieve complex, reliable, and fast pipelines with GitLab CI.

There have been outages, but we didn't find this to be any worse than CircleCI, and was better than our experience running a Jenkins cluster.

What do you think is a better CI system for a project hosted on GitHub?

CircleCI is the best system I've encountered so far that enables running locally what one can run "in the cloud." GH Actions has "act" which is some kind soul's attempt, but is ultimately emulation. The gitlab-runner binary is a cruel joke (I mention that both in support of "seems local CI running is damn hard" and also because GL allows just using it for CI of GH repos, presumably a feature from back before GHA existed)

Earthly just switched their license to MIT, so that's something I intend to try out, and Dagger is a new entrant into that race, but (a) requires learning cuelang (b) shit itself when I last tried it

I would say Jenkins is still the best CI system.

GitLab's issue tracker, though, can only tie an issue to a single repo.

GitLab team member here.

Epics can help with a group view over issues in multiple projects, with more planning features, for example roadmaps and boards. [0] Board/roadmaps are available for issues in projects too.

To a larger extent, the planning with work items may help address the challenge with project/group boundaries. Recommend reviewing the direction page [1] and linked issues/epics, and add your thoughts :)

[0] https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/group/epics/

[1] https://about.gitlab.com/direction/plan/project_management/t...

I have pinged our product managers at GitLab, and they kindly shared the issue titled "Share an Issue/Epic To Multiple Projects or Groups" [0] which directly addresses the initial request.

[0] https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/296668

Reply on news.ycombinator.com