Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Create a useful way to manage issues for the Peeragogy project #1

Open
holtzermann17 opened this issue Nov 23, 2019 · 4 comments
Open

Comments

@holtzermann17
Copy link
Member

In discussions and experiments with @skreutzer we have tried:

  1. Tasks inside of a shared Google Group
  2. Tasks inside of a Github issue tracker
  3. Huboard, a kanban-style overlay connected to said issue tracker
  4. Clubhouse, a stand-alone kanban-style system
  5. @skreutzer and I have also both used Org mode, in separate projects

There may be other options. I propose that we go with 2 and 3 for now. This issue is here to discuss these matters further. Meanwhile, new issues can be created in this otherwise empty repository.

@holtzermann17
Copy link
Member Author

holtzermann17 commented Nov 23, 2019

Here is a link to the current repo reflected on HuBoard: https://huboard.com/Peeragogy/ReadingGroup/

Here is a link to the toplevel peeragogy.github.io repo reflected on HuBoard: https://huboard.com/Peeragogy/Peeragogy.github.io/

@daytripper
Copy link
Member

daytripper commented Nov 23, 2019 via email

@holtzermann17
Copy link
Member Author

In case it’s useful for you too: I just installed a iPhone app called GitHawk that shows all of the issues on GitHub repositories that I have been involved with. This seems kind of nice because it gives a way to keep track of issues that’s similar to an email inbox but that is not clogging up my other email.

Sent with GitHawk

@skreutzer
Copy link
Member

Let's just use whatever works to get issues collected, work on them organized/coordinated and tasks actually completed. The problem is of course that there are many different and incompatible personal preferences, and the tools don't work together (for proprietary/business reasons). Ideally, every tool would publicly publish or offer export of issues in a semantic format. GitHub seems to be relatively fine via its API. More problematic is the import (for synchronization of changes made elsewhere, not to speak of merging, where it is beyond me why GitHub isn't managing issues just like regular repositories with forking, pull requests and merging) where one has to do authentication for their API (ideally OAuth) and program against their API logic, while a simple upload or pull from an URL could avoid application logic and make the online/offline tools just operate on semantic data. At least, with the GitHub API, we could create overviews, dashboards, card boards, (RSS) feeds and what not relatively cheaply, to gain/keep overview.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants