Just signed up and so far everything worked well. Couple tweaks, you may want to use more than 1 letter for the workspace name icon in the left menu when a user has a few workspaces since naming is unpredictable.

There is also a lot of whitespace between welcome username, and the getting started copy on the page.

The home icon and the logo in the left nav do the same thing not sure if you need both.

Create task in the backlog should stand out more, I'm a PM and that is probably one of the most used options. Is there an option to add time to a task or urgency?

Hope this helps, looks like a great start.

Hey! So we had the option for a min char count, but users wanted to have one letter workspaces (for fun I guess?). We need to revamp our navigation anyway since it's hard to know where to click to change workspaces.

Good point on the whitespace- will take a look.

As for creating tasks- we're thinking of a sticky area on the left (that's always on) to create tasks.

For priority- we're releasing labels in 3 weeks. You should be able to assign #P1 or priority overall on different sets of tasks. That being said- we are considering adding some form of auto recognition or NLP to suggest priority and labels automatically based on past tasks. For time, we have 3 effort options (points, hours or days), we kept it simple to create a standup view where you can see how engineers track throughout the week.

Let us know which other parts may be tedious. We have more work to do!

Will do and good luck!

Can I be the first to ask _how_ it's free?

The website mentions in the pricing popup:

>We are working on functionality for teams that provides visibility and predictability in product development. Features may include automation around sprints and multi-team workflows. This will be part of our premium plan, and is where the AI comes into play.

I've also been hurt by free tools that disappear after we commit to them but since Tara did AI stuff for PM in the past maybe they already have it in the roadmap.

Thanks

@iba99 If only company founders could be forced to pay for "free forever plan" once they are no longer free. In reality "Free for ever" seems to mean "free untill I sell the company"

Any plans to accommodate privately-hosted git servers?

Not yet but it would form part of a future on-prem version of Tara, where privately-hosted instances of Github/Gitlab are accommodated.

Thanks for sharing. I'm curious about the GitLab integration, is there a page on your website describing it in more detail?

Just made this live: https://help.tara.ai/hc/en-us/articles/360051704951-Gitlab-I...

Basically, RN its a webhook. Once active, you can view merge requests related to a task, when synced. Over time, we should be releasing a full fledged Gitlab bi-directional sync and app (similar to our Github app here: https://github.com/marketplace/tara-ai)

Our Github app also allows you to view stale PRs that are blocking the sprint. We should have similar functionality for Gitlab over the next few wks.

Is there a reason for announcing it now, when it's incomplete and less useful, rather than once it's done (or more feature complete, at least)?

I ask because this seems like the sort of thing I would look at, then shrug off because it's not all there, as I don't want to put time and energy into learning a product that will have the features I want "some day", so I'd be likely to skip out on it for now and then forget about it basically forever.

Personally, I'd much rather be shown something that feels "done" and try to integrate it then than work with someone's first pass on the implementation, and I'm concerned that others would feel the same way and you would miss out on users.

Solid point, but I would counter that a feature or a product is never truly complete. The goal should be to get to a stage where users can derive value from the feature (or product), and ship.

In our case, the main ask from developers is the ability to sync/connect their tasks to merge requests on Gitlab. v1 of the integration does exactly that, and additional elements will be shipped over the coming weeks as users activate the integration.

To set up my question, maybe I should share a sort of hazy crackpot vision or dream. So when I look at Git, I see a variety of postmodernism that's like “look, we’re not being pretentiously intellectual or even pessimistic—we’re being realistic, software just is a postmodern world, Alice and Bob both have software that they call ‘Linux’ on their laptops, and they just aren’t the same source code, but they are both Linux, and trying to assess which one is the “true” Linux really does devolve into asking questions about power and basically in this case the power is vested ultimately in one king, Linus Torvalds, who says which one is more modern, and that’s fine as long as you understand that it’s arbitrary and anyone can fork the project at any time and create a rival power-structure and so forth.” Like, these ideas that I made fun of when I was a kid turn out to be amazingly practical things as finally revealed by git enlightenment.

I would summarize the problems of various bugtrackers including Jira as being insufficiently “up with the times” therefore. They reflect the old modernist approach to truth. Schedules, deadlines, when was this “done”. But we know in software that really you want your source of truth of your bugtracker to basically be in the same Git repository as your code: one and the same commit needs to simultaneously close a bug as needs to properly change the source code to fix that bug, because the bug may be fixed in your “staging” codebase but that bugfix may not yet be deployed to “prod.” A reversion merged into prod as a hotfix needs to suddenly re-open the bug that we said was fixed-in-prod because now it no longer is. All of that. That's my hazy crackpot vision. :)

Given all that, there is also a great difficulty with people using workflows like GitFlow which have the same “old way of doing things” misunderstandings. It’s not that those workflows aren’t good, they are good—for SVN repositories. You apply them to a Git repository and then you have this strange tension where the workflow and the VCS are working at cross-purposes sometimes. So it's also things like GitLab's CI/CD being a file checked into Git. This sounds great until you realize that nobody is expecting postmodernism to suddenly pop up here. “How did you merge that thing into prod when all of our admins were unreachable? Admins are supposed to have to push the button.” “Well, I was really in a bind, so I did something I would have never normally done: I pushed up my own branch `fix-master`, and in that branch I changed the CI/CD file to trigger deploys to production on pushes to `fix-master` instead of `master`.” But I had to!” Git was like “hegemony? what hegemony? if `master` has power then everyone has power.” Hah.

So my question is, based on this description, I am not sure that I see you have “drunk the same Kool-aid” about Git, I am instead seeing a declaration that you want something fast-and-easy-and-supports-Git.

Which, like, is fine. I don’t want to come across as crapping on your invention with a dream that I absolutely admit is hazy and crackpot, right? You have actually done the work and I am hypothetical and I have mad respect for you and your work. But I am sharing kind of my bigger vision to ask, “do you have a bigger vision? is it different than mine, some more systematic structure?” Is Tara just an easy way to do something like Jira with Git, or do you have a fundamentally new concept in mind that you are headed towards that will change how we track issues with our software?

holding 'truth' as a single fixed thing is not 'modernist' any more than being relativist is true because it is what people do in some social setting.

you are talking about philosophical relativism and using a philosophically progressivist bias to claim legitimacy.

at some point, Alice and Bob's linux will diverge to the point that Charlie will recognize neither as being linux, at which point there needs to be some basis for legitimacy to have a common ground, which in turn 'devolves into asking questions about power' (e.g. authority/legitimacy)

one can certainly be too fixed in ones approach, but the inverse is also true.

if bob, alice and charlie all work for an organization of people delivering 'the same linux' (whether open source/community driven or public company), what will a consumer of this 'linux' recieve when they get it?

which in turn 'devolves into asking questions about power' ..

ultimately we need to be on some same page, even if it is a bunch of post it notes on a desk and not a neatly bound hardcopy, so i wouldn't let the dualism implicit in being relativist create a false dichotomy whereby being organized at all is somehow outside of the realm of possibility.

what does your vision of 'keeping track of being on the same page' look like, if the page doesn't even need to exist to be on it?

or does so-called software 'enlightenment' require dissociating from all fixed concepts altogether? (show me the computer that will work this way and not be a magic spell, quantum included, since we are talking about 'being realistic')

I’m not sure that we should read postmodernists as being willy-nilly relativists. Like certainly the sort of “practical postmodernism” that I see in Git is not willing to say “Linux is BSD” the way a relativist might. Linux is a unix kernel and more broadly an operating system and a community led by Linus Torvalds for several years and a dozen other things besides, postmodernists would claim—and that there is no Archimedean “sturdy enough place to stand” to tell you which of these definitions is the “best”—but it is not a bouncy castle or a monad burrito tutorial or whatever nonsense I just “cook up”. Like the philiospical postmodernists’ criticism of the modernist “reason is going to solve the problem of finally accessing truth and we are gonna have a big truth party” is that reason essentially makes a 2D projection of a 3D truth, and so you have to approach the same truth from multiple perspectives with reason to get a full appreciation for it. Reason does not eliminate the problem of perspectives—sort of a Platonic fallacy, that reason will give you one single “world of the forms”—and that it shouldn’t even try because perspectives are great, let’s have some more perspectives.

I’m tying this to the notion of Git’s branching model of course, each branch being something of a slightly different perspective or reference code for the same amorphous project of Linux. What consumers receive is just that then, a perspective on the broader project, one particular snapshot with various patches and so forth. In an OOP analogy Linux is a class and they receive an instance of that class, maybe.

But yeah I think I am with you, dissociating from all fixed concepts altogether is probably not a great direction to go with this. You want some project organization and request or issue tracking. I am sorry if I sort of was suggesting that issue-tracking at all was meaningless, I definitely don’t agree with that. But I do think it instead has something to do with recognizing that the code to resolve an issue (if there is code at all, if it's not just getting closed as works-as-intended) leads to that issue having a “status” which needs to be tracked across multiple branches, and that this process is tedious and error-prone when we try to do it by hand.

I really enjoyed your setup to the question and it did really make me think about issue management in deeper detail.

I think that one of the points that you raise is quite valid - that issue tracking should really be integrated into version control.