From my perspective as a dev, the question I find myself always asking is "Who's the SME that can I ask about this code that still works here?" So for me the benefit of your project would be using it basically as an intelligent git blame that says who's done what to a particular line/file/module/project, and why. If that SME isn't available anymore, I'd like your tool to help me build context around the issue I'm working on. I'd want to see at least git commit message history and authors included in the available knowledge. If the repo has docs included, even better.
Another reason I would want git history included is because I think it would make your product more valuable quicker. I see your tool as a way to improve the dev culture by promoting the points you mentioned, but it's not clear how long it takes it to start to pay off and be able to answer some of the more historical questions you've suggested. I question, if my team had poor/nonexistent PRs in the past, when would I be able to get any use out of it, and would there always be blindspots around code that didn't have a good PR.
Thank you for taking the time to give me this feedback, really appreciate it. I think Devlog has the information needed to help answer these questions, but right now it doesn't do a particularly good job of making that easy.
> I question, if my team had poor/nonexistent PRs in the past, when would I be able to get any use out of it, and would there always be blindspots around code that didn't have a good PR.
This is a great question and the answer is that with poor/nonexistent PRs and documentation, Devlog cannot help you other than by incentivizing you to do a better job so that it can be useful — so not that helpful. I'd love to find a way to make it better in this kind of "cold start" case, that's part of why I appreciate your feedback about other potential uses. Thank you again.
My pleasure! I've got a few more thoughts that came up.
It would be nice to know more about how I would interface with your product. It's not clear if it's a daily report, if it's a text box where I ask "What did Intern #3 work on last week?", if it's a chronological page, or something else.
Do different people get different answers? Would a CEO get a different answer than an engineer if they asked what the devops team worked on? Basically do you offer different levels of granularity for different user profiles.
Love the project and looking forward to watching it grow!
Another reason I would want git history included is because I think it would make your product more valuable quicker. I see your tool as a way to improve the dev culture by promoting the points you mentioned, but it's not clear how long it takes it to start to pay off and be able to answer some of the more historical questions you've suggested. I question, if my team had poor/nonexistent PRs in the past, when would I be able to get any use out of it, and would there always be blindspots around code that didn't have a good PR.