Hey folks. My co-founder and I started noodling on productivity tools a few years ago. After interviewing 250+ engineers and founders, we discovered that most project management software a) takes a lot of time to configure b) is not built for cross-functional teams and c) takes away focus from the release cycle. The status quo is that engineers spend precious time wading through tickets, and EMs + PMs continue to lack visibility at the release level. This only gets worse with distributed teams across different time zones, and as teams outside of engineering rely on product to meet customer milestones and release dates.<p>Currently- the tool helps run and manage tasks, requirements and sprints. With team level insights and a smart indicator for sprint planning.<p>This is our open beta. RN Github integration is live for PRs and commits tied to sprints- we're still working on Bitbucket and Gitlab.
It’s a nice looking tool, but the marketing feels oh so very Enterprise Agile(tm) in ethos.<p>“Run your weekly sprints on time” — as opposed to them taking two weeks?<p>To achieve predictability, something has to give. It’s usually “learning” which is never on the plan.<p>The next release will be done when the right top priorities are met well enough. When’s that? You decide by prioritizing how many priorities are in the release and your bar on quality.<p>Focus on execution? Why not on building the right thing, and building the thing right?<p>The thing to manage isn’t tasks, requirements, and sprints. The thing to manage is: “Is this team effective, enough to be trusted?”<p>Meanwhile, a week takes a week.
As someone who makes this type of product, I tend to hate this industry. We make things far more complicated than they need be. It's all just ticketing software with labels changed and I just want a list of <i>all</i> the tickets for me to manually filter. I'm tired of companies thinking I don't know the best way to see the tickets I want to see.
I wish I could be off of Jira and all of Atlassian. Sadly, that is not my decision to make.<p>Atlassian's antics with Jira, Confluence, and BitBucket have really started to make me mad.<p>Jira is changing it's editor... slowly. The old editor had nice shortcuts, like h1. - h6., {code}, {blockquote} etc. When you create a ticket - it's the old editor, but when you edit a ticket or write a comment, it's the new editor! This new editor has none of the markdown-ish shortcuts the old editor had.<p>Confluence is also changing it's editor and the old wiki pages do not have a 1:1 match to the new wiki pages. This means you have to go through each page, convert it, and edit it to fix the broken things - because depending on what you use, it will be broken. For example, there is no longer a note, warning, or error macro - instead it gets turned into a info macro that you have to go in and edit it to the style you previously had. Code blocks no longer let you pick the color scheme you had, instead they're all generic. There's even more here I'm not listing.<p>Confluence has also just been wonky lately. It's supposed to automatically format a link into something nice (e.g. <a href="https://confluence/page-name" rel="nofollow">https://confluence/page-name</a> -> Page Name or <a href="https://jira/AAA-1234" rel="nofollow">https://jira/AAA-1234</a> -> AAA->1234) and this only happens sometimes. Other times I'm finding the page frozen or slow and the only thing that fixes it is refreshing the page or publishing the page and going back to edit it.<p>Of course with BitBucket I dislike that they're dropping Mercurial. I understand why, but I am really going to miss it. Git is way more powerful but Mercurial is (at least to me) way easier to use and pick up. The infuriating part is that they offer no tool for converting existing repositories whatsoever. Github has a tool that will turn your BitBucket Mercurial repo into a Github repo!<p>For any tool that aims to be an alternative to Jira / Confluence / BitBucket, please don't do what Atlassian does. If you are going to make any transitions or any major change - please make it as easy and seamless as possible for your users.
We've been using Tara for a while now.<p>As a smaller team, we never had good luck with the hyper-complexities of JIRA, we were stuck with Trello (and/or a simple Notion Kanban board) for a while. But Tara's really worked the best for us.<p>I personally, really like the personal dashboard for every developer on the team, flagging all your main tickets, PR's, and your teammates commits. I'm hoping for awesome things here.
Literal quote from the privacy policy:<p>> With your permission, we will collect location information from your mobile device to [insert purpose]. You may turn off this feature through the location settings on your mobile device.<p>Maybe fix that?
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.<p>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.<p>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?<p>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.<p>Just writing this quickly, with no deep thought, but it was my very first thought after checking your website.<p>I hope this feedback can be useful to you.
Well done for getting your project out there ! I'm sure its great.
I've commented on this in the past. This is what I want from my "ticketing-software":<p>-I don't want 100 ways todo things or configure a ticketing tool...<p>-Sell me the BEST "Software Development PROCESS" with a tool.<p>-Don't give me a "Great Ticketing-System" !<p>I want to know what is the fastest, best process to develop software and track it.<p>All of "these ticketing software" starts with "track , manage , assign tickets" but leave the process up to you... I want to buy an EXPERT PROCESS not a REALLY GREAT TICKET TOOL with x10 options.<p>I always use the example of the "ultra high-end amplifiers" they don't come with a "Tone-Control" because these companies are THE BEST... my ears can never be better than their in-house "mozart-prodigy-tuning-expert".<p>Why would I soil my ears by thinking I can better adjust the "tone" of the amplifier that cost $500k :/ I'm buy FANTASTIC SOUND... not a great amplifier with 100 ways to get good sound.<p>Sorry rant over..
So... Sell me a GREAT SOFTWARE PROCESS - if it comes with software and a ticketing system... so be it. But make sure the software supports the process and I don't want to configure anything but user accounts :)<p>Sorry for all the caps... don't flame me :)
One thing that bugs me with development workflow tools is how they never really integrate with the <i>true</i> workflow of developers. Once you have a development workflow with Pull Requests, Code reviews, QA etc, it would be nice to be able to encode it into the<p>What's the true progress of an issue (ticket, work item...)? Why do I need to remember to set a ticket to "resolved" after a PR completes, and so on.<p>Every place has a different workflow and they are usually very complex, but these tools (Jira, YouTrack, GitHub issues, Azure DevOps, ...) <i>are</i> complex. They <i>are</i> often configurable, yet they still (as far as I'm aware) fail to integrate the process part of things with the code part of things. At best you have some loose integration between version control and process e.g. "this ticket has these changes" but they don't integrate the two processes so that the state-machine that is a ticket (is it done? why is it not? is it because a PR build failed? Is it because an approval that must be done after merge has failed? is it because the issue has several pull requests associated with it and not all are merged yet?).<p>I absolutely don't mind complexity in these tools. Having an extremely simple post-it process is good. This is the second best. The process complexity in big enterprises and distributed teams <i>will always be there</i>. If I can configure a tool to make it go away I'm glad. The worst situation is when you have a hyper complicated process and no tools to help. That's the situation many businesses are in. "You didn't mark the two fields and change the state to Y and then send the email to the translation person and notify the regional development person about the change! You have to do that".
I've been using clubhouse for myself and it's pretty much what I need in terms of "advanced to-do list" but "not as heavy as JIRA".<p>What I'm more interested in is how project management software like this keeps popping up and I genuinely wonder what the rationale is?<p>We use JIRA, Trello and Asana at work and between three of them, yeah, things are working. How much more do we want out of them? Not much. Let's just get on with actual work.<p>But I must be missing something - some market research, some user research where there is a big unmet need or problem that none of these tools are currently solving and not just in "missing a feature" way, but at a fundamental level where it justifies an entrepreneur to jump in and create an entire software from scratch.<p>I'm not in the domain, so I obviously don't have the data. I know lots of people complain about JIRA (including me), but my complaints don't warrant me to move.<p>Maybe these companies are targeting "new" users? New companies, new teams, people who are starting projects anew and looking for project management software?
great tool - congrats on the open beta!<p>it wasn't immediately clear to me that the product is still in beta, and was unable to find any pricing information which threw me off.<p>another question - is there a reason why Github isn't a support authentication method, considering that Github integration is a big part of the product?<p>But the tool looks super interesting - going to try it out and intro it to our team!
Looks awesome and I would love to try it out.<p>Unfortunately I work at a large company which has 'standardized' on Jira + other related tools. Now that the majority of work is being done through Jira, it would take a world ending event to move away, no matter how good of a product the alternative is.
How closely is it coupled with Github / Github issues? Would it work as a replacement for something like Zenhub, which is mostly just a facade over Github's own interface? Can you still add replies to issues directly in Github or do you have to do it in Tara?<p>I would love to replace Zenhub, but almost every other tool would require us moving some key functionality out of Github. We still want to keep all of our issues, estimates, labels, and planning in Github's native issues, while also having some advanced planning and sprint features.
Hi. I worry that this sort of tool does not benefit engineering very much; in my experience, Jira and other time-management tools are used to allow product ownership and management to request ever-sillier features, while penalizing engineers who do not make themselves legible with constant status updates.<p>When designing Tara, how did you account for the power differential between the employees who will be using Tara to record their daily work and the managers who will be using Tara to supervise said employees?
I have just tried it and after planning a small sprint for my team I loved it immediately.<p>I'd absolutely love to give it a go at my company. I want an on-premise version.
Does it allow to export all the user entered data in structured format? So that moving out of it is easier if we don't like whatever pricing you guys decide later?
I'm getting double flickers on some pages like <a href="https://tara.ai/about/" rel="nofollow">https://tara.ai/about/</a>. I'd totally switch over if there was a JIRA importer tool. I've used JIRA for years and would love something similar with a faster and less confusing UI.
Your Jira alternative is currently a better replacement for a limited but important part of Jira features: clearly only an initial, promising feature set that will be expanded and improved. But in what direction?
The more technical side of software development (e.g. configuration, building and deployment of the releases)? Generic ticket handling and time tracking/accounting to expand the product's usefulness beyond specialized software product development teams? Integration with other software and processes?
Would love to get off JIRA but the leverage jira has over alternatives is that there are integrations for _everything_. Slack, PagerDuty, Freshdesk, etc. I wonder how long it will take Tara to get up to speed
Performance for me is very poor; the app is very unresponsive - you should consider optimistic UI updates. Im based out in Asia at the moment so its the server latency im assuming?
Hey Tara team. Ben here from Armory (YC W17). Love that you are tackling this very important problem for product and eng teams. We use JIRA (surprise!) as do all of customers. I've long wished I had the time and energy to think about and maybe even tackle the challenge you are facing - building a JIRA-killer. Go forth and conquer! I would be very happy to help in any way I can!
Oh, "free" means "free to use", not "free software". Would've been a cool feature. It also looks pretty cool otherwise, but ... does it contain "AI"? The TLD and title seem to point towards it.
Cool idea. We would like to feature your startup in our website, submit here: <a href="https://www.startupjohn.com/submit-startup" rel="nofollow">https://www.startupjohn.com/submit-startup</a>
Congrats the on beta! Just a quick question though. Seems like in the about page, you guys mention that the "platform leverages machine learning". How do Tara leverage ML? From the landing page, it was hard to see any features relevant to ML.<p>Thanks
Unless you are going open source, you might not want to ship your typescript sourceMaps in production. <a href="https://i.imgur.com/A1tQtVO.png" rel="nofollow">https://i.imgur.com/A1tQtVO.png</a>
Tara looks great, trying it out. Also, I love the clarity of the landing page. I apologize if it is off-topic: what product/tool did you use for creating the main video in landing page? Thank you!
Not sure if it's only me. But there's some funky funky things happening on that frontend. There's a white modal that covers that whole screen that pops out at every page load.
Congrats on shipping the beta.<p>One thing that strikes me is that while you present your product as alternative to Jira, both the name and the logo (bluish form looking like an A) hint at Atlassian and Jira.
congrats on the release! I tried a little bit and this looks nice. I like the focus on agile workflow so that people can quickly evaluate whether this is suitable for them. Liking it so far!<p>although I seem to have a problem searching for task inside my requirement details