Kudos for the release! This comment might seem counterintuitive, but I think Tara's adoption would grow a lot if you offer a way to sync or import from JIRA.
JIRA sprint planning is painful. In my current company, we use it, and its shortcomings shape our way of working. I.e., not able to link histories' subtasks to a sprint, causing that the backlog is full of long histories, and you need to go looking around to see how the histories are going.
If we were able to sync epics and histories (JIRA <-> Tara), we could probably have the better of both worlds. I see Tara very focused on devs, but not all JIRA users are devs. For instance, how would critical bugs - reported by users - be handled in Tara?
I imagine this synchronization as bidirectional, where you write the specs as a list in JIRA's issue description, but they are actionable in Tara. So no more subtasks in JIRA and Tara become a complementary tool that, once you are used to it, you can go with entirely standalone.
Just writing this quickly, with no deep thought, but it was my very first thought after checking your website.
- We've done exactly this for Github <> Tara. We have a bi-directional sync with Github issues, and active issues are converted into tasks in Tara. Basically, if a user wanted to, they could just use Tara as a Github issue tracker.
- We wanted to start with Github, then work our way through more git/source control platforms, and then move to Jira. Interestingly, structuring incoming data from Jira requires a few months of work on data models IF we don't want the user to spend a ton of time labelling. Jira's data structure can be a hot mess to deal with.
- If the sync took a day or even a week of configuration, would you find it worth your time to invest and go through that? Or would yo expect the sync to work instantaneously (like Github <> Tara).
- What would be your expectations on mapping for histories?
It makes sense that you started with Github. I agree too that Jira's data structure is a mess. I've managed one instance for years and any update was a whole mess on itself.
I think the sync configuration should be quick, something that can be bootstrapped like Trello integration with an export artifact.
About mapping for histories, it should be 1-to-1 and each spec to be a list point or a subtask. Nothing fancy nor complex if Tara is the main source of truth, leaving Jira as a way for non-tech users to report issues.
JIRA sprint planning is painful. In my current company, we use it, and its shortcomings shape our way of working. I.e., not able to link histories' subtasks to a sprint, causing that the backlog is full of long histories, and you need to go looking around to see how the histories are going.
If we were able to sync epics and histories (JIRA <-> Tara), we could probably have the better of both worlds. I see Tara very focused on devs, but not all JIRA users are devs. For instance, how would critical bugs - reported by users - be handled in Tara?
I imagine this synchronization as bidirectional, where you write the specs as a list in JIRA's issue description, but they are actionable in Tara. So no more subtasks in JIRA and Tara become a complementary tool that, once you are used to it, you can go with entirely standalone.
Just writing this quickly, with no deep thought, but it was my very first thought after checking your website.
I hope this feedback can be useful to you.