Posted by alentred 12 hours ago
Over the years I've noticed that "merging two designs into one" is a design smell. Nearly every technology we still use today has a very clear separation from other technologies, and is instead layered or composed to gain added functionality.
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?
Naming is hard, but I mostly didn't expect to reach that point :-)
It's also a denial of service, since the feature doesn't work yet, and thus should get assigned a CVE.
Only once it gets fixed does it become a feature.
;)
Yeah yeah we don’t want a centralized service, but it’s the ideal use case for a centralized service.
That's the key feature to make a distributed bug tracker actually work in practice.
Now what you are talking about seems to be about the lifecycle of a bug. With this model you can replicate the same behavior as on major bugtrackers, or also track some metadata (fix in commit xxx) and compute where the bug is "deployed". But that's a UX/social problem, not a technical one imho.