Using github for issues/collaboration

[Michael Neumann]

Am 17.02.2014 20:31, schrieb Carsten Mattner:
 > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 5:06 PM, John Marino <dragonflybsd at marino.st> 
wrote:
 >> On 2/13/2014 15:48, Michael Neumann wrote:
 >>>
 >>>
 >>> Am 13.02.2014 15:26, schrieb Antonio Huete Jimenez:
 >>>> Hi Michael,
 >>>>
 >>>> Honestly I don't see any compelling reasons in your email for us to
 >>>> switch to Github. But I'd be interested in knowing what are those
 >>>> collaboration barriers you see in Redmine.
 >>>
 >>> Hm, the visual experience on github is IMHO the main aspect for me. 
  And
 >>> it's simplicity. You can use markup language to format the issue.
 >>
 >> Unfortunately it's too simple.
 >> The inability to add an attachment is a non-starter.
 >> And frankly, the "markdown by default" causes a lot of problems.
 >> Everytime somebody pastes in a script with "#" as comments, and don't
 >> know to set it as a block of code, it turns into gigantic headlines.
 >> Just a PITA.
 >>
 >> *IF* there was good attachment system and if markdown was "opt-in", 
then
 >> maybe there would be a discussion.
 >>
 >> Btw, DPorts issues are handled at GitHub.
 >>
 >> John
 >
 > Also Markdown is broken and has many issues. Wikicreole or
 > Restructured text are options that don't make you face syntax
 > issues or deficiencies. I'm sorry but not everything Github does
 > is right. For example they're making ui changes but not upgrading
 > their openssh version to a modern one.

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is broken in Markdown? It's working
quite well for me. I think for simple bug reports, discussions or blog
articles Markdown is good enough. You might not be possible to write
your thesis in which you probably can with Restructured. Restructured
text is nice, but IIRC it is only implemented for Python and it's a huge
spec and also pretty hard to parse. For the rest of the world, Markdown
is pretty much the defacto standard.

Regards,

   Michael