Just saw this — I posted a different take on the same problem the same day (git-native-issue, commits instead of files). Two independent projects converging on refs/issues/ is good signal.
The markdown files approach gives you grep/ag/rg search for free, which is a real advantage. And the repo-prefix + sequential ID scheme is definitely more memorable than UUIDs for daily use.
A couple of questions after reading the code:
- With a single refs/issues/latest branch for all issues, what happens when two contributors work offline on different issues and then push? Seems like it would produce a merge even though the issues are independent, does that cause friction in practice?
- On the ID scheme: gen_repo_id() generates 6 chars from a 22-letter alphabet. Two clones getting the same prefix is unlikely but not impossible. Have you considered what happens if it collides?
The markdown files approach gives you grep/ag/rg search for free, which is a real advantage. And the repo-prefix + sequential ID scheme is definitely more memorable than UUIDs for daily use.
A couple of questions after reading the code:
- With a single refs/issues/latest branch for all issues, what happens when two contributors work offline on different issues and then push? Seems like it would produce a merge even though the issues are independent, does that cause friction in practice?
- On the ID scheme: gen_repo_id() generates 6 chars from a 22-letter alphabet. Two clones getting the same prefix is unlikely but not impossible. Have you considered what happens if it collides?