Comments on: The Unfuddle Challenge http://yonenlabs.com/2009/05/the-unfuddle-challenge/ Tue, 21 Dec 2010 14:23:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Ryan http://yonenlabs.com/2009/05/the-unfuddle-challenge/comment-page-1/#comment-405 Ryan Tue, 21 Dec 2010 14:23:39 +0000 http://yonenlabs.com/?p=27#comment-405 We have been using Unfuddle for the development of kumutu.com for over a year now. So far, it's great. The unlimited repositories really work for us as we sometimes have some small side projects that simply need a globally accessible repository and we do not mind clumping all the tickets together under 1 of the our 4 Projects. The price and funcitonality of Unfuddle is really what did it for us. We also use Basecamp (Unfuddle integration would be a great bonus.. hint hint) for higher level tasks and Milestones such as allocating tasks to our information architect for wireframing, tasks to our designers, general business todos, etc. This lets us keep Unfuddle focused on development and normally only used by our coding and testing team. One of our favourite features of Unfuddle is how well Tickets integrate with code commits (we use Git as apposed to Subversion). For example, if we create ticket number 355 to fix the homepage, once the developer handles that bit of work, he can quickly add a messages in the Git commit message similar to "fixes #355" and this resolves the ticket number 355 once he has pushed his changes up to Unfuddle. This means that our project manager can quickly create tickets and the developer can quickly fix the tickets without any time wasted between programming and using the ticketing system. Unfuddle was made with a team of developers in mind and does this better than any of the other systems we reviewed (GitHub, Beanstalk, lighhouse, etc). With all these great things said about Unfuddle, we would love to see a design improvement to unfuddle.com. The design of github simply makes the whole process feel easier to use and some small aesthetic design enhancements to unfuddle would make using the app a bit more appealing. They could also use a few enhancements of viewing commits, speeding up the site, etc. With this said, we are very happy with and will keep using Unfuddle, but we still continue to evaluate Github every so often and are tempted to switch over for the nicer design and popularity once Github has comparable technology. Github was really made for the mass market open source community, where Unfuddle was made for internal development teams. Concluding, if you start an open source project that you would like to share with the world, we would recommend GitHub. If you have an application developed by a global or internal team, then Unfuddle is for you. We have been using Unfuddle for the development of kumutu.com for over a year now. So far, it’s great. The unlimited repositories really work for us as we sometimes have some small side projects that simply need a globally accessible repository and we do not mind clumping all the tickets together under 1 of the our 4 Projects. The price and funcitonality of Unfuddle is really what did it for us. We also use Basecamp (Unfuddle integration would be a great bonus.. hint hint) for higher level tasks and Milestones such as allocating tasks to our information architect for wireframing, tasks to our designers, general business todos, etc. This lets us keep Unfuddle focused on development and normally only used by our coding and testing team.

One of our favourite features of Unfuddle is how well Tickets integrate with code commits (we use Git as apposed to Subversion). For example, if we create ticket number 355 to fix the homepage, once the developer handles that bit of work, he can quickly add a messages in the Git commit message similar to “fixes #355″ and this resolves the ticket number 355 once he has pushed his changes up to Unfuddle. This means that our project manager can quickly create tickets and the developer can quickly fix the tickets without any time wasted between programming and using the ticketing system.

Unfuddle was made with a team of developers in mind and does this better than any of the other systems we reviewed (GitHub, Beanstalk, lighhouse, etc).

With all these great things said about Unfuddle, we would love to see a design improvement to unfuddle.com. The design of github simply makes the whole process feel easier to use and some small aesthetic design enhancements to unfuddle would make using the app a bit more appealing. They could also use a few enhancements of viewing commits, speeding up the site, etc.

With this said, we are very happy with and will keep using Unfuddle, but we still continue to evaluate Github every so often and are tempted to switch over for the nicer design and popularity once Github has comparable technology. Github was really made for the mass market open source community, where Unfuddle was made for internal development teams.

Concluding, if you start an open source project that you would like to share with the world, we would recommend GitHub. If you have an application developed by a global or internal team, then Unfuddle is for you.

]]> By: SeanJA http://yonenlabs.com/2009/05/the-unfuddle-challenge/comment-page-1/#comment-63 SeanJA Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:13:14 +0000 http://yonenlabs.com/?p=27#comment-63 I used assembla (before it became a pay only site) for some school projects, I do miss the "fixed #1234" commits, but github works fine for me at the moment (I haven't created any private repos, only public ones). I used assembla (before it became a pay only site) for some school projects, I do miss the “fixed #1234″ commits, but github works fine for me at the moment (I haven’t created any private repos, only public ones).

]]>