Simon Josefsson wrote:
> The savannah issue tracker? I'm using it, but I find the
> availability issues with savannah together with the really dated UX and
> technical design (is it possible to export savannah issues in any
> standardized format?) is making me consider alternatives.
>
> I would prefer to leave the centralized software hosting world.
> Forgejo/codeberg definitely isn't their yet. But I see using it as one
> likely way forward to get to a decentralized approach.
A decentralized approach means stagnation. Simply because making a change
to a decentralized software is 10 times more complex than making it to a
centralized service. I mean, if Forgejo version Y introduces a feature that
Forgejo version X does not have, how do the two communicate? The developers
not only have to keep around old compatibility code forever; they also have
to design fallback rules and such. Whereas in a centralized service the
developers just upgrade their code and possibly execute a database schema
change command, and are done with the change.
If you want examples, look at
- why email is functionally still at the same level as 1990,
- what it takes for the Bitcoin community to implement a protocol change,
- how quickly e.g. Slack and Signal as centralized services could evolve
their features.
So, any decentralized tracker that you start using today will have a
"really dated UX" 10 years from now. Simply because they can't innovate
easily.
Bruno
