-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.8k
Offline access to Issues #1953
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
Comments
Having a Gitea Desktop Issue Tracker is a better system I think. |
I couldn't find more requirements from users. Maybe we could close this issue. |
A Gitea Desktop Issue Tracker wouldn't help with offline access. |
BTW, there's a proof-of-concept code at https://github.com/houdasaad/gitea-bugit |
I think that's a generally about data mobility and accessibility in the design. Sure, wikis that store posts in an arbitrary database work but ones that store it in git specifically are more accessible for data replication, automation, search, and other tooling. Not everyone is looking for that in a wiki but developers using git anyway sure do appreciate the ability to use the same tool for wiki content. That would be the same with issues for sure. |
Would also love something like this - with Jira, I used to use https://almworks.com/jiraclient. Basically a Desktop client that syncs all your issues from Jira, then you can go offline & continue to work locally - and when you're connected again, sync the changes back up to Jira. Basically just something that would allow for working on i.e. flights, etc. |
[x]
):Description
While the code and the wikis are stored in Git repositories that I can consult and edit offline, the issues seem to be stored in the SQL database, which means that I can't consult them offline, let alone modify them offline.
So this is a feature request: change the representation of issues such that they're stored in a Git repository. The way I imagine it, each issue would get its own Git branch and the data would be represented in such a way that those branches can be merged meaningfully. This would also make it possible to share issues between different projects and sync them both ways very easily.
I've played around with such an issue tracker (with a proof-of-concept implementation in (yuck!) /bin/sh), if you're interested (only the data layout is of interest, not the code): https://gitlab.com/monnier/bugit
While not directly related, pull request #733 goes in a similar direction.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: