I think the parent comment just wanted to say that since this project uses docker compose then it should be a lot simpler to get up and running. Actually running something in production would still require some degree of administration and monitoring based on your use case.

On their webpage it says that you can get started in 30 seconds with their hosted instance. Would be nice if it was as simple to get started with a locally hosted instance.

That’s certainly the incentive of a company who sells paid hosting.

I think it’s reasonable to provide as close to a one-line / one-action initial install, even for people who are experienced admins. (Those experienced folks can edit/tweak as they like, but having a basic “push this and something sensible happens” goes a long, long way to getting people to succeed in trying the product.)

to me, docker serves as documentation as well. I can see the dockerfile along with docker-compose file to see how it's being setup.

Of course it is fair. Why would we consider "fair" for an open source offering trying to entice new users?

I don't want a new project, I want to try self-hosting the software. If I am using it and liking it then certainly I would put time and effort into it. If it takes some time fiddling around with docker even to use, well, I have other projects to fiddle.

That goes for all self-hosted, but especially so for a project management tool. I'd be trialing it because I have projects I already need help managing. Adding one more is friction that would likely turn me away.

> If it takes some time fiddling around with docker even to use

Where did you get this from? You do not need to fiddle around with anything to have it working. The only thing that _probably_ requires "fiddling" is the nginx port - and you need to change it only if the default port is already in use. Is it really that difficult nowadays???