It doesn't have to be a "crappy manual system" - I'm simply suggesting that given that git itself is a damned good distributed versioning database for arbitrary content, then we might as well also use it for distributed issue-tracking. A simple offline-mode browser-based editor that lives in a single HTML file within the repo would provide a nice GUI on top.
Hmm, I think I might be on to something... anyone want to start a project?
>git itself is a damned good distributed versioning database for arbitrary content, then we might as well also use it for distributed issue-tracking.
For what it's worth, it's interesting to see that the Fossil distributed SCM includes an issue tracker but they made a deliberate architecture decision to not propagate the tickets data.[1] They had a chance to make your "distributed-issues-tracking" idea a 1st-class concept in Fossil but decided against it.
Also, the issues/tickets is just one example feature. Github will continue to evolve to add more and more sophisticatted SDL/ALM (application lifecycle management) like JIRA and Microsoft Team Foundation Server.
Those features are not easy to implement in a peer-2-peer SCM with practical usability.
Thank you for the link. I read through their justifications and I think using a git-submodule solves their problems of polluting the main project history and permissions issue. Using directories for mutually-exclusive state grouping (e.g. "closed"/"open"/"new") solves the directory problem.
