Hacker News Reader

Comment by bflesch | Hacker News Reader

Looks really nice, I wonder why there hasn't been a project with this exact name and functionality before. When I think about it, "git bug" is quite limiting (the bug vs. feature discussion).

Naming things is hard, but I can see that it might feel unnatural to use "git bug" to track features. Maybe that's totally okay because it does one thing - tracking bugs - very well, and the whole feature roadmap is living in another system/process anyways?

View on HN

Bugzilla has been using the term "bug" to track features for nearly 3 decades now. Doesn't seem to hamper them.

There’s also Fogbugz, Mantis Bug Tracker, etc.

I do want to extend to pull-request and more, so I'll need to at least make space in the CLI commands. Having a "git bug bug" next to a "git bug pr" is quite ugly.

Naming is hard, but I mostly didn't expect to reach that point :-)

Don't overthink it! `git bug bug` is fine - it's easy to type and becomes muscle memory quickly. Love the project, my first impression is "why hasn't this existed the entire time?" which usually means you're on to something.

Lack of a feature is a bug. After all, it's intended functionality that doesn't work!

It's also a denial of service, since the feature doesn't work yet, and thus should get assigned a CVE.

I once worked at a company where the chief architect created an actual bug in Jira, the entire text of which was, "X doesn't exist", X being the name of the product which took ~3 years to develop (and yes it was all tracked as dependencies of that one bug).

It’s a variation on the old Lisp technique of debugging the empty program. You start with () (a.k.a. nil), which doesn’t do what you want, so you debug it.

Their logo is a ladybug so everything works out in the end.

Isn't everything nowadays a bug?

Only once it gets fixed does it become a feature.

;)

Although if it doesn't get fixed, it also sometimes becomes a feature.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com