Offline access to Issues #805

New Issue

GiteaMirror · 2025-11-02T03:37:21-06:00

GiteaMirror commented

2025-11-02 03:37:21 -06:00

Originally created by @monnier on GitHub (Jun 12, 2017).

Gitea version (or commit ref): 1.1
Git version: 2.11
Operating system: GNU/Linux Debian testing
Database (use [x]):
- PostgreSQL
- MySQL
- MSSQL
- SQLite
Can you reproduce the bug at https://try.gitea.io:
- Yes (provide example URL)
- No
- Not relevant
Log gist:

Description

While the code and the wikis are stored in Git repositories that I can consult and edit offline, the issues seem to be stored in the SQL database, which means that I can't consult them offline, let alone modify them offline.

So this is a feature request: change the representation of issues such that they're stored in a Git repository. The way I imagine it, each issue would get its own Git branch and the data would be represented in such a way that those branches can be merged meaningfully. This would also make it possible to share issues between different projects and sync them both ways very easily.

I've played around with such an issue tracker (with a proof-of-concept implementation in (yuck!) /bin/sh), if you're interested (only the data layout is of interest, not the code): https://gitlab.com/monnier/bugit

While not directly related, pull request #733 goes in a similar direction.

Originally created by @monnier on GitHub (Jun 12, 2017). - Gitea version (or commit ref): 1.1 - Git version: 2.11 - Operating system: GNU/Linux Debian testing - Database (use `[x]`): - [ ] PostgreSQL - [ ] MySQL - [ ] MSSQL - [x] SQLite - Can you reproduce the bug at https://try.gitea.io: - [x] Yes (provide example URL) - [ ] No - [ ] Not relevant - Log gist: ## Description While the code and the wikis are stored in Git repositories that I can consult and edit offline, the issues seem to be stored in the SQL database, which means that I can't consult them offline, let alone modify them offline. So this is a feature request: change the representation of issues such that they're stored in a Git repository. The way I imagine it, each issue would get its own Git branch and the data would be represented in such a way that those branches can be merged meaningfully. This would also make it possible to share issues between different projects and sync them both ways very easily. I've played around with such an issue tracker (with a proof-of-concept implementation in (yuck!) /bin/sh), if you're interested (only the data layout is of interest, not the code): https://gitlab.com/monnier/bugit While not directly related, pull request #733 goes in a similar direction.

GiteaMirror added the type/proposal label 2025-11-02 03:37:21 -06:00

GiteaMirror commented

2025-11-02 03:37:22 -06:00

@jonasfranz commented on GitHub (Jun 17, 2017):

Having a Gitea Desktop Issue Tracker is a better system I think.

@jonasfranz commented on GitHub (Jun 17, 2017): Having a Gitea Desktop Issue Tracker is a better system I think.

GiteaMirror commented

2025-11-02 03:37:23 -06:00

@lunny commented on GitHub (Sep 11, 2023):

I couldn't find more requirements from users. Maybe we could close this issue.

@lunny commented on GitHub (Sep 11, 2023): I couldn't find more requirements from users. Maybe we could close this issue.

GiteaMirror commented

2025-11-02 03:37:23 -06:00

@monnier commented on GitHub (Sep 11, 2023):

A Gitea Desktop Issue Tracker wouldn't help with offline access.

@monnier commented on GitHub (Sep 11, 2023): A Gitea Desktop Issue Tracker wouldn't help with offline access.

GiteaMirror commented

2025-11-02 03:37:23 -06:00

@monnier commented on GitHub (Sep 11, 2023):

BTW, there's a proof-of-concept code at https://github.com/houdasaad/gitea-bugit

@monnier commented on GitHub (Sep 11, 2023): BTW, there's a proof-of-concept code at https://github.com/houdasaad/gitea-bugit

GiteaMirror commented

2025-11-02 03:37:23 -06:00

@hramrach commented on GitHub (Nov 1, 2023):

I think that's a generally about data mobility and accessibility in the design.

Sure, wikis that store posts in an arbitrary database work but ones that store it in git specifically are more accessible for data replication, automation, search, and other tooling. Not everyone is looking for that in a wiki but developers using git anyway sure do appreciate the ability to use the same tool for wiki content.

That would be the same with issues for sure.

@hramrach commented on GitHub (Nov 1, 2023): I think that's a generally about data mobility and accessibility in the design. Sure, wikis that store posts in an arbitrary database work but ones that store it in git specifically are more accessible for data replication, automation, search, and other tooling. Not everyone is looking for that in a wiki but developers using git anyway sure do appreciate the ability to use the same tool for wiki content. That would be the same with issues for sure.

GiteaMirror commented

2025-11-02 03:37:24 -06:00

@JGKle commented on GitHub (Feb 19, 2024):

Would also love something like this - with Jira, I used to use https://almworks.com/jiraclient. Basically a Desktop client that syncs all your issues from Jira, then you can go offline & continue to work locally - and when you're connected again, sync the changes back up to Jira. Basically just something that would allow for working on i.e. flights, etc.

@JGKle commented on GitHub (Feb 19, 2024): Would also love something like this - with Jira, I used to use https://almworks.com/jiraclient. Basically a Desktop client that syncs all your issues from Jira, then you can go offline & continue to work locally - and when you're connected again, sync the changes back up to Jira. Basically just something that would allow for working on i.e. flights, etc.

GiteaMirror referenced this issue

2025-11-02 04:03:14 -06:00

SCRUM backlog/sprint backlog per project #1510

Sign in to join this conversation.

Branches Tags

1 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: github-starred/gitea#805