Way to customize "issues" to turn it into a proper discussion/forum. #81

VA1DER commented 2023年11月07日 01:28:38 +01:00

The irony of asking this here isn't lost on me.

There is a certain amount of engagement that is lost by requiring users whom you want to participate in a discussion to do so by using an issue tracker. Using a separate repository labelled "discussion", as we all see, is one option. But I suggest it would be a huge benefit to have a dedicated discussion feature.

Almost all of the infrastructure is already in place. Literally almost the only thing that is required is a way to change the button label from "Open Issue" to "Start Discussion". It would also be nice if the discussion area could co-exist with an actual issue area in the same repository.

I am always reluctant to use an issue tracker for conversation or to engage help. But that is exactly what I want to encourage users to do for my new repository/project.

Is there any hope that a change like this is coming down the pipeline for Fogejo and/or Codeberg?

The irony of asking this here isn't lost on me. There is a certain amount of engagement that is lost by requiring users whom you want to participate in a discussion to do so by using an issue tracker. Using a separate repository labelled "discussion", as we all see, is one option. But I suggest it would be a huge benefit to have a dedicated discussion feature. Almost all of the infrastructure is already in place. Literally almost the only thing that is required is a way to change the button label from "Open Issue" to "Start Discussion". It would also be nice if the discussion area could co-exist with an actual issue area in the same repository. I am always reluctant to use an issue tracker for conversation or to engage help. But that is exactly what I want to encourage users to do for my new repository/project. Is there any hope that a change like this is coming down the pipeline for Fogejo and/or Codeberg?

earl-warren commented 2023年11月07日 12:05:33 +01:00

The irony of asking this here isn't lost on me.

😄

> The irony of asking this here isn't lost on me. 😄

earl-warren commented 2023年11月07日 12:14:09 +01:00

Almost all of the infrastructure is already in place. Literally almost the only thing that is required is a way to change the button label from "Open Issue" to "Start Discussion".

IMHO Forgejo is light years away to provide even an half decent discussion forum. And trying to implement that as part of Forgejo is a huge undertaking that has very little chances of success.

Forgejo is using the issue tracker rather than an external forum such as discourse in the interest of dogfooding. At least that's what I understand to be the initial idea. There is also the upside of reducing the maintenance work for the Forgejo infrastructure. Installing and upgrading a discourse instance is not a huge work. But it adds to the existing workload and I think everyone is currently (and happily) at capacity and not ready for that.

> Almost all of the infrastructure is already in place. Literally almost the only thing that is required is a way to change the button label from "Open Issue" to "Start Discussion". IMHO Forgejo is light years away to provide even an half decent discussion forum. And trying to implement that as part of Forgejo is a huge undertaking that has very little chances of success. Forgejo is using the issue tracker rather than an external forum such as discourse in the interest of dogfooding. At least that's what I understand to be the initial idea. There is also the upside of reducing the maintenance work for the Forgejo infrastructure. Installing and upgrading a discourse instance is not a huge work. But it adds to the existing workload and I think everyone is currently (and happily) at capacity and not ready for that.

VA1DER commented 2023年11月07日 20:17:48 +01:00

IMHO Forgejo is light years away to provide even an half decent discussion forum. And trying to implement that as part of Forgejo is a huge undertaking that has very little chances of success.

I don't agree at all. All the required capabilities for comment authoring, handling, and storage are already here. In fact, a not-at-all-terrible system could be taking the exact issue system as it exists already and just duplicate its functionality on a separate repository UI tab with the authoring button relabeled from "New Issue" to "New Discussion".

And the more similar a discussion system is to the existing issue tracking system, the easier it would be to, say, make it so you can take a discussion and turn it into an issue and take where someone goes onto the issue system asking for help and turn that into a discussion.

> IMHO Forgejo is light years away to provide even an half decent discussion forum. And trying to implement that as part of Forgejo is a huge undertaking that has very little chances of success. I don't agree at all. All the required capabilities for comment authoring, handling, and storage are already here. In fact, a not-at-all-terrible system could be taking the exact issue system as it exists already and just duplicate its functionality on a separate repository UI tab with the authoring button relabeled from "New Issue" to "New Discussion". And the more similar a discussion system is to the existing issue tracking system, the easier it would be to, say, make it so you can take a discussion and turn it into an issue and take where someone goes onto the issue system asking for help and turn that into a discussion.

dev_T commented 2024年05月23日 02:52:35 +02:00

Honestly, this would be amazing. It is great that on GH I am able to ask questions straight up on a library repository, but since I won't keep my repos on GH anymore, I will definitely miss this feature.

Honestly, this would be amazing. It is great that on GH I am able to ask questions straight up on a library repository, but since I won't keep my repos on GH anymore, I will definitely miss this feature.

n0toose commented 2024年05月24日 16:56:25 +02:00

Honestly, this would be amazing. It is great that on GH I am able to ask questions straight up on a library repository, but since I won't keep my repos on GH anymore, I will definitely miss this feature.

If this starts existing though, I would not want it to be enabled by default. I think we have to spend some more time refining Issues and Pull Requests before expanding the scope of Forgejo's social features even further, and I believe that we have to have some sort of a "limit" so as to not increase vendor lock-in before we make things "easily exportable".

> Honestly, this would be amazing. It is great that on GH I am able to ask questions straight up on a library repository, but since I won't keep my repos on GH anymore, I will definitely miss this feature. If this starts existing though, I would not want it to be enabled by default. I think we have to spend some more time refining Issues and Pull Requests before expanding the scope of Forgejo's social features even further, and I believe that we have to have some sort of a "limit" so as to not increase vendor lock-in before we make things "easily exportable".

VA1DER commented 2024年05月25日 15:43:34 +02:00

If this starts existing though, I would not want it to be enabled by default ... I believe that we have to have some sort of a "limit" so as to not increase vendor lock-in

So, you're basically worried that if there was a forum then it would make it too desirable and make it harder to leave the platform. And the answer is, for now, to either not implement the feature, or leave the feature turned off, so that there is less uptake and less lock-in.

Let's make or keep the site less desirable and less feature rich so that we don't have to worry about making it hard to leave.

before we make things "easily exportable"

How is issue tracker data moved now?

> If this starts existing though, I would not want it to be enabled by default ... I believe that we have to have some sort of a "limit" so as to not increase vendor lock-in So, you're basically worried that if there was a forum then it would make it too desirable and make it harder to leave the platform. And the answer is, for now, to either not implement the feature, or leave the feature turned off, so that there is less uptake and less lock-in. Let's make or keep the site less desirable and less feature rich so that we don't have to worry about making it hard to leave. > before we make things "easily exportable" How is issue tracker data moved now?

n0toose commented 2024年05月25日 16:44:56 +02:00

Okay, you have a valid argument, but jeez.

Okay, you have a valid argument, but *jeez*.

n0toose commented 2024年05月25日 22:40:04 +02:00

So, you're basically worried that if there was a forum then it would make it too desirable and make it harder to leave the platform. And the answer is, for now, to either not implement the feature, or leave the feature turned off, so that there is less uptake and less lock-in.

My concern is that we shouldn't move too fast, otherwise we could have a mess such as the mess that is currently in place with the whole "Pull Requests are Issues" situation, which is a software architecture problem that has prevented me from fixing bugs in the past. There is some tight coupling in place that is not allowing me to improve those existing features - I admit that it was on me to communicate why I'd be """shooting down""" a suggestion on this basis with facts instead of just "vibes".

How is issue tracker data moved now?

#120 (planned)

---

Despite finding the tone a bit aggressive before, I had a responsibility to explain what I had in my mind when I expressed disagreement (which wasn't disagreement in the sense of "hey, we don't need this" - we do, but "hey, we need to take these other things [that I should've explained further] in mind as well").

Best regards.

> So, you're basically worried that if there was a forum then it would make it too desirable and make it harder to leave the platform. And the answer is, for now, to either not implement the feature, or leave the feature turned off, so that there is less uptake and less lock-in. My concern is that we shouldn't move too fast, otherwise we could have a mess such as the mess that is currently in place with the whole "Pull Requests are Issues" situation, which is a software architecture problem that has prevented me from fixing bugs in the past. There is some tight coupling in place that is not allowing *me* to improve those existing features - I admit that it was on me to communicate why I'd be """shooting down""" a suggestion on this basis with facts instead of just "vibes". > How is issue tracker data moved now? https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/120 (planned) --- Despite finding the tone a bit aggressive before, I had a responsibility to explain what I had in my mind when I expressed disagreement (which wasn't disagreement in the sense of "hey, we don't need this" - we do, but "hey, we need to take these other things [that I should've explained further] in mind as well"). Best regards.

dev_T commented 2024年06月09日 03:02:02 +02:00

So, you're basically worried that if there was a forum then it would make it too desirable and make it harder to leave the platform. And the answer is, for now, to either not implement the feature, or leave the feature turned off, so that there is less uptake and less lock-in.

My concern is that we shouldn't move too fast, otherwise we could have a mess such as the mess that is currently in place with the whole "Pull Requests are Issues" situation, which is a software architecture problem that has prevented me from fixing bugs in the past. There is some tight coupling in place that is not allowing me to improve those existing features - I admit that it was on me to communicate why I'd be """shooting down""" a suggestion on this basis with facts instead of just "vibes".

Despite finding the tone a bit aggressive before, I had a responsibility to explain what I had in my mind when I expressed disagreement (which wasn't disagreement in the sense of "hey, we don't need this" - we do, but "hey, we need to take these other things [that I should've explained further] in mind as well").

Best regards.

I agree there are nicer ways to communicate and at the same time really appreciate you explained your point of view despite the frustration with the way the communication happened.

I completely understand that priorities exist, but wanted to be a word of support by a feature that I have been using a lot lately.

Thank you for your work in Forgejo and I love that I can selfhost my private repos with it!

> > So, you're basically worried that if there was a forum then it would make it too desirable and make it harder to leave the platform. And the answer is, for now, to either not implement the feature, or leave the feature turned off, so that there is less uptake and less lock-in. > > My concern is that we shouldn't move too fast, otherwise we could have a mess such as the mess that is currently in place with the whole "Pull Requests are Issues" situation, which is a software architecture problem that has prevented me from fixing bugs in the past. There is some tight coupling in place that is not allowing *me* to improve those existing features - I admit that it was on me to communicate why I'd be """shooting down""" a suggestion on this basis with facts instead of just "vibes". > > Despite finding the tone a bit aggressive before, I had a responsibility to explain what I had in my mind when I expressed disagreement (which wasn't disagreement in the sense of "hey, we don't need this" - we do, but "hey, we need to take these other things [that I should've explained further] in mind as well"). > > Best regards. I agree there are nicer ways to communicate and at the same time really appreciate you explained your point of view despite the frustration with the way the communication happened. I completely understand that priorities exist, but wanted to be a word of support by a feature that I have been using a lot lately. Thank you for your work in Forgejo and I love that I can selfhost my private repos with it!

how commented 2024年06月17日 19:41:15 +02:00

Discourse has one or more plugins to integrate Github issues, badges, etc. But 1) it's Github, and 2) it only supports one repository at a time. But what it does is to connect a bot that monitors issues there and generate a linked topic on the Discourse, then copies back and forth the contributions. Best of both worlds.

It misses a simple dashboard on the Discourse side with a burn chart or something.

Since my team is using both Discourse and Forgejo, I would be interested in providing Discourse <-> Forgejo integration for discussion. The first step would be to define the scope of such an integration, and how that would work.

Currently, the Discourse Tickets plugin is broken, and not so advanced.
The Discourse Assign plugin is a bit too limited at the moment.
Both could serve as a starting point.

I started a related topic on Discourse Meta, where @merefield from The Pavilion Coop indidated interest.
We could team up to get some NGI Zero funding for this feature, and work on both the Discourse and the Forgejo sides.
(I say "We", but I am on the NGI Zero mentoring team, so that would rather be "You", and I'll keep an eye on it...)

Discourse has one or more plugins to integrate Github issues, badges, etc. But 1) it's Github, and 2) it only supports one repository at a time. But what it does is to connect a _bot_ that monitors issues there and generate a linked topic on the Discourse, then copies back and forth the contributions. Best of both worlds. It misses a simple dashboard on the Discourse side with a burn chart or something. Since my team is using both Discourse and Forgejo, I would be interested in providing Discourse <-> Forgejo integration for discussion. The first step would be to define the scope of such an integration, and how that would work. Currently, the [Discourse Tickets plugin](https://meta.discourse.org/t/tickets-plugin/97914) is broken, and not so advanced. The [Discourse Assign plugin](https://meta.discourse.org/t/discourse-assign-plugin/58044) is a bit too limited at the moment. Both could serve as a starting point. I started a [related topic on Discourse Meta](https://meta.discourse.org/t/issue-tracker-for-discourse/312354), where @merefield from [The Pavilion Coop](https://pavilion.tech/) indidated interest. We could team up to get some NGI Zero funding for this feature, and work on both the Discourse and the Forgejo sides. (I say "We", but I am on the NGI Zero mentoring team, so that would rather be "You", and I'll keep an eye on it...)

blaise commented 2024年11月06日 18:19:25 +01:00

I'm super interested in this topic.

I'm super interested in this topic.