Issues seems to have stood the test of time as it is a good shorthand for things that developers need to keep abreast of. Other things eg help and discussion seem to get moved into other channels.
I'm not sure what you mean by a reply? It seems strange to have a reply directly to a repository. There could be a chat stream for a repository that people could dip in and out of. or a reply to a discussion top or other entity.
> It seems strange to have a reply directly to a repository.
You could say the same for Zaps, Shares, Labels, Reactions, ...
This seems to be the main blindspot for most devs. I guess it's hard to imagine because GitHub deosn't have the stuff we have, by default, on **any** event.
With nostr:npub18stt78efprta2el02tzgnez6ehghzgtt000v58967wvkgezjmprs0n7h7u (and already now in nostr:npub1gm7gw8q6akeft2pjt270we35vlff0v9g2fene6cxkz2h68q5hl6qls0fte ) repos can and will get zaps, replies and reactions.
We are bringing that part together in one coherent, fun and conversational view.
My main point in this discussion is that next to that, all that's left is the "Get stuff done"-side.
For which I'd only need:
1) Tasks (which you can totally call Issues, if you will)
2) PRs
3) Docs
Zaps are a sign of appreciation. Shares are an invitation for others to check it out. Labels help people find the repo. Reactions are signal of an emotional response the repoistory. Mentions in kind 1, kind 1111, etc is bringing it up in converations. Replies seem a bit misc but with an expectation that the maintainers review the message. Help me understand what they are bringing to the party 😀
In the UI/UX we're building Zaps are more like "Superchats " that can be engaged with.
:pointright: In the Reply section (as the default)
So Zaps and Replies go hand in hand in the whole experience.
And they do indeed handle the "misc" category very well. Which is my main point.
So we can take the "misc" out of Issues and just have them be :110percent: productivity focused.
