This is why you don’t announce future changes until they’re essentially ready to go out the door. Apple used to understand this better than most. Until you build the feature, you’ll have people asking you constantly when it’ll be done. After you build it, you’ll have people complaining that it doesn’t work exactly like they imagined it in their head. If you end up not building it and say so, you’ll get attacked for it, even by people who never knew about the plans before the cancellation.

Keep quiet about internal plans only you can affect. Let features requests come to you, monitor interest in those, and reply if they’re interesting or not feasible, so you can discuss and figure out what would work best for your users. Engage but don’t commit unless you’re certain something will happen.

I’m surprised the conversation hasn’t devolved to a bigger mess yet (maybe it’s being well moderated). It’s a shame they’re having to preemptively lock issues, but I completely get it. It’s exhausting having to deal with abuse on public forums when you’re on the receiving end and always have to keep your conposure.

The only one that directly annoys me is not being able to have threaded comments at the PR level. https://github.com/github/roadmap/issues/552 You can do it with "quoting", which is fine if there are two of you but turns into a mess if there's more than that.

They've said that they're watching the discussions for feedback, so I hope they listen and implement that one.

Happy that they are being transparent (rather than letting the issues rot), annoyed that they appear to be prioritising marginally useful AI stuff for basic UX.

Going to stick my neck out here.

A lot of these "improvements" fall into the following 3 categories:

1) More complexity around issue tracking

2) More complexity around permissions

3) IDE-ness and general visual-studioification of the web interface.

Since many of the issues make GitHub bloated and more difficult to use for general use cases, they _should_ be removed.

Ever since GitHub was bought by Microsoft things have got worse for me as an end user -- browser compatibility is worse and I run into bugs frequently when on not-chrome; their academic programme now requires an insanely invasive localisation check that instantly fails for me on Linux and their support couldn't advance the process as I hadn't submitted an application yet; and their tooling slowly pushes people away from FOSS and towards proprietary methods. I wish they'd figure out how to make it a hacker friendly place again.

Where did the "basic functionality" quote come from? I haven't looked at all 42 in detail, but it largely seems like _advanced_ functionality to me.

"After an in-depth review, we’ve identified a number of open issues that have become outdated over time—some for several years."

Sounds fair enough to me.

"At GitHub, transparency and clarity are at the heart of our relationship with the community."

When these kind of carefully crafted prety slogans has to be a prime statement before anything is told then my suspicious mind gets very alert. Probably even overcompensate. Do people take these kind of forefront self evaluations as facts or have suspicion when this has to be announced and highlighted, stated (instead of being obvious). I do not know why (of course I do!) but these kind of self admirative statements have the opposite effect on me. Even when they are true.

The trouble with bug tracking / project management software is that everybody wants Just One More Feature.

But if you implement them all, it will become an overcomplicated mess, somebody will replace it with a simpler version, and the cycle will repeat.

Would I like some of the features they've decided not to implement? Yes.

Would I hate the results if they implemented everything on this list? Also yes.

And making everything configurable so you can pick the exact subset you want is (a) an incredible amount of work to make the resulting combinatorial explosion of possible choices all work nicely (b) tends to inevitably lead to something like JIRA.

I do appreciate people being annoyed about specific features they'd really like getting removed from the roadmap, but so it goes.

There's some weird stuff there.

> GitHub Actions: Artifacts v4 available in GitHub Enterprise Server

So they're deprecating Artifacts V3 next week, and now announced they won't upgrade Enterprise Server to v4?

I assume none of their AI features were deprecated.

I am going to call it, Microsoft has not been particularly good stewards of GitHub.

They have over complicated so much of it to please corporate customers that it has really lost what made it great to begin with.

It used to make everything seem simple and manageable. Changes were slow, sure, but they felt like they were at least thought through. The docs used to be simple and easy to navigate. Everything is about 10x more complex now.

I wish they put their focus more on GitHub Projects/Issues, it is just too slow.

I wish they would put more effort in Github Issues (the project management product). They are so close to have something that just exactly what I need. But it seems like they haven't touched it in a couple of years. There are still many rough edges that has been there since the beta.

Could Github developer workflow metadata (e.g. issues) be exported/serialized into a git repo for decentralized replication and/or import into an alternative?

And so it begins. It was good whilst it lasted.

The inability to comment on any line in a PR is a real pain. I’m disappointed to see the plans for this abandoned.

Death by committee or death by microsoft, take your pick.

> Commenting on unchanged lines in a pull request

This is infuriating that it's missing. Not being able to just say "Hey, missed updating this line" is just an insane oversight

Guess who turned GitHub into a SPOF?

We did.

[dead]

Enshifittication at work.