https://github.com/github/roadmap/discussions/1014 Skip to content Navigation Menu Toggle navigation Sign in * Product + GitHub Copilot Write better code with AI + Security Find and fix vulnerabilities + Actions Automate any workflow + Codespaces Instant dev environments + Issues Plan and track work + Code Review Manage code changes + Discussions Collaborate outside of code + Code Search Find more, search less Explore + All features + Documentation + GitHub Skills + Blog * Solutions By company size + Enterprises + Small and medium teams + Startups By use case + DevSecOps + DevOps + CI/CD + View all use cases By industry + Healthcare + Financial services + Manufacturing + Government + View all industries View all solutions * Resources Topics + AI + DevOps + Security + Software Development + View all Explore + Learning Pathways + White papers, Ebooks, Webinars + Customer Stories + Partners * Open Source + GitHub Sponsors Fund open source developers + The ReadME Project GitHub community articles Repositories + Topics + Trending + Collections * Enterprise + Enterprise platform AI-powered developer platform Available add-ons + Advanced Security Enterprise-grade security features + GitHub Copilot Enterprise-grade AI features + Premium Support Enterprise-grade 24/7 support * Pricing Search or jump to... Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests... Search [ ] Clear Search syntax tips Provide feedback We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously. [ ] [ ] Include my email address so I can be contacted Cancel Submit feedback Saved searches Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly Name [ ] Query [ ] To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation. Cancel Create saved search Sign in Sign up Reseting focus You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session. You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session. You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session. Dismiss alert {{ message }} github / roadmap Public * Notifications You must be signed in to change notification settings * Fork 1k * Star 8k * Code * Issues 57 * Pull requests 9 * Discussions * Actions * Projects 1 * Security * Insights Additional navigation options * Code * Issues * Pull requests * Discussions * Actions * Projects * Security * Insights Deprecating Outdated Issues on the GitHub Public Roadmap #1014 ankneis announced in Announcements Deprecating Outdated Issues on the GitHub Public Roadmap #1014 @ankneis ankneis Nov 19, 2024 * 15 comments * 26 replies Return to top Discussion options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply edited * {{editor}}'s edit {{actor}} deleted this content . {{editor}}'s edit Something went wrong. [948] ankneis Nov 19, 2024 Maintainer - Deprecating Outdated Issues on the GitHub Public Roadmap At GitHub, transparency and clarity are at the heart of our relationship with the community. As part of our ongoing efforts to keep you informed about our product roadmap, we've already begun hosting quarterly roadmap webinars to share updates and engage with the community in real-time. This week, we're taking the next step in achieving our roadmap goals by refreshing the public roadmap project board. After an in-depth review, we've identified a number of open issues that have become outdated over time--some for several years. To better align with our current product direction and to build trust with our users, we are deprecating these outdated issues and updating the board with new and accurate information. This refresh will make it easier for you to follow our progress, ensure higher-quality updates, and provide a more accurate reflection of GitHub's development priorities. Moving forward, we are also committing to regular updates, so you can rely on the roadmap as a trusted source of information about GitHub's ongoing and upcoming features. What's Changing? * Deprecation of Outdated Issues: We will be removing a number of issues that are no longer relevant due to changes in priorities or project timelines. These issues have been stagnant and no longer represent our product direction. * Full Board Refresh: A complete update to the roadmap board will be made, adding new features and plans that better reflect where GitHub is headed. * Ongoing Maintenance: To ensure the roadmap stays accurate, we will be conducting regular reviews and updates. FAQ Why are we deprecating these issues? * Many of the issues marked for deprecation are out of date and no longer align with GitHub's current roadmap. By cleaning up the board, we aim to provide more accurate, actionable insights to the community. What can I expect from the refreshed roadmap? * The refreshed roadmap will feature up-to-date information about new initiatives and priorities. Our goal is to make the roadmap a reliable resource that users can check regularly for accurate and relevant details. Will the roadmap be updated regularly? * Yes! We're committing to regularly updating the roadmap to ensure it reflects the latest developments. This is part of our effort to build and maintain trust with our community. What should I do if an issue I care about is deprecated? * While some issues may no longer be represented in the public roadmap, we are always listening to community feedback. If you have concerns about a specific feature or request, feel free raise your thoughts in the discussions. Deprecated Issues As part of this update, the following issues will be deprecated. If you have questions on a specific issue/roadmap item, please reach out to your GitHub contact. Deprecated Issue Command Palette [GA] GitHub Actions: Secure Shell Debugging (Beta) Actions: Managing Environments at Scale GitHub Actions: Artifacts v4 available in GitHub Enterprise Server Precise code navigation for Java Precise code navigation for JavaScript and TypeScript Issue level custom metadata Ability to add a project to a project Cross repository milestones and labels Create custom automation flows Projects: Activity History Projects: Updated Projects header [Public Beta] Issue Hierarchy powered by Tasklists Packages: Granular permissions and easy organization sharing for enterprise customers Packages: maven - granular permissions and easy organization sharing GitHub Actions secrets improvements for Reusable workflows [GA] More control over required status checks for pull requests using merge queue Reply to PR-level comments Codespaces: Pull Request Validation for prebuild-enabled repositories Pull Request Dashboard Dependabot on Actions Forced Migration Secret scanning push protection for gists Secret scanning: Extend coverage to Actions logs Dependabot alerts shows transitive dependency paths GHES Cluster High Availability Open ID Connect (OIDC) for GHEC Audit Log Streaming to Azure Blob Storage Azure AD (AAD) Service Principal Support for GHEC EMUs (Beta) GitHub Actions Starter workflow improvements Automatic security check information on each Actions listing Actions: Private networking for GitHub-hosted macOS runners Security manager improvements and custom organization security roles (Preview) Expanding access to historical log data via audit log exports (Preview) Code security transaction report in PDF Code scanning: AI-powered autofixes for CodeQL alerts integrated into VS Code Increase GitHub Enterprise Importer's (GEI) repository size limit to 40GB (Preview) Enterprise Apps and installation automation (Public Beta) GitHub Security Advisory private forks support Actions GitHub Actions configuration variables - GA Actions: Outbound network control for GitHub-hosted runners Enterprise access for GitHub apps Codespaces: Private networking with Azure VNETs (Preview) Commenting on unchanged lines in a pull request We appreciate your understanding as we make these changes. Our aim is to keep you better informed and involved in our development process. Thank you for being a valued member of the GitHub community! Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. 3 You must be logged in to vote 93 42 [?] 2 All reactions * 93 * 42 * [?] 2 Replies: 15 comments * 26 replies * Oldest * Newest * Top Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply edited * {{editor}}'s edit {{actor}} deleted this content . {{editor}}'s edit Something went wrong. [112] scamden Nov 20, 2024 - #552 is unbelievably painful UX. Gitlab has this. Not being able to thread on top level comments makes it so hard to track conversations and results in all this quotation noise. Please reconsider adding this feature (is it really that hard?? you already have threaded comments on lines..) Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. 133 You must be logged in to vote 60 All reactions * 60 3 replies @alvgaona Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply alvgaona Nov 20, 2024 - I wonder how this is not aligned to GitHub's roadmap. Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. 21 All reactions * 21 @rjbell4 Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply rjbell4 Nov 20, 2024 - I also cannot understand how this would be no longer relevant. Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. 10 All reactions * 10 @fitz-vivodyne Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply fitz-vivodyne Nov 20, 2024 - On what planet is #552 outdated? Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. 12 All reactions * 12 Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply [104] NatoBoram Nov 20, 2024 - It's a little tone-deaf to call #281 "outdated" when it's a daily struggle to manually perform the workflow we want automated. Or to call #276 "outdated" when it's a daily struggle to sync labels and to work around milestones by using Linear in our org. I also agree with #552, a Twitter feed is unsuitable for pull request comments. They deserve their own replies. I mean, it's great that you guys finally commit on not making the user experience better, but calling your top pain points "outdated for several years" is bound to not be well-received. Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. 35 You must be logged in to vote All reactions 3 replies @jeherve Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply jeherve Nov 20, 2024 - It's a little tone-deaf to call #281 "outdated" when it's a daily struggle to manually perform the workflow we want automated. It is a bit frustrating indeed. However, we are invited to continue the discussions in GitHub discussions if we're still interested in seeing some of those deprecated issues happen. With that in mind, if you are as interested as I am to see custom workflows in Projects, I think those 3 discussions could be upvoted: * https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/45653 * https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/53705 * https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/53973 Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. 3 [?] 3 All reactions * 3 * [?] 3 @Nimorid Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply Nimorid Nov 20, 2024 - I am too really disappointed #276 was depreciated, I recently set-up a new Project and that was exactly what I missed and had to duplicate a lot of manual work. Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. 1 All reactions * 1 @joshmanders Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply edited * {{editor}}'s edit {{actor}} deleted this content . {{editor}}'s edit Something went wrong. joshmanders Nov 25, 2024 - "Outdated for several years" Ya'll left it sit for several years, lmfao. I don't understand this mentality of "we haven't acknowledged or addressed this issue for several years, therefore we're going to mark it as stale and close it" that most people have. Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. 4 All reactions * 4 Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply [145] connorjkennedy Nov 20, 2024 - Myself and my organization were extremely interested in seeing #636 be implemented, as it would allow for a much tighter security posture around centralized reusable workflows. At the current moment, one must share secrets with the repository consuming the reusable workflow, which is a blatant security risk, as anyone with write access to the calling repository can then cut their own branch, modify the action file, and use the secrets however they desire. Are there any plans to implement this or similar functionality in the future? Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. 29 You must be logged in to vote All reactions 3 replies @ViacheslavKudinov Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply ViacheslavKudinov Nov 20, 2024 - Myself and my organization were extremely interested in seeing # 636 be implemented, as it would allow for a much tighter security posture around centralized reusable workflows. At the current moment, one must share secrets with the repository consuming the reusable workflow, which is a blatant security risk, as anyone with write access to the calling repository can then cut their own branch, modify the action file, and use the secrets however they desire. Are there any plans to implement this or similar functionality in the future? Same here. Had a hope we will get it. Sad to see it is no longer in the roadmap. Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. All reactions @marcosboger Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply marcosboger Nov 21, 2024 - Same for our Team. It would save us a lot of time and make our centralized CICD framework more secure. Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. All reactions @reiniertimmer Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply reiniertimmer Nov 25, 2024 - This would be an incredible security boost, as it will allow to tie secrets specifically to reusable workflows (as it now is using secrets from the calling repository). This means that if you want to reuse workflows on many repositories, you also need to make sure that secrets are available on all these repositories - and there is no way you can control how these secrets are being used. It will basically allow full freedom to use any secret in any way, whereas assigning it to a centrally controller repository, you can actually control how the secrets are being used. As an alternative, we are considering using OIDC with job_workflow_ref to access a keyvault where the secrets are stored instead. This is quite a painful and slow workaround. It does work, but it is not ideal at all. I would really like to see this feature in some form or another! Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. All reactions Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply [186] Anbu42 Nov 20, 2024 - We use GitHub Enterprise server, and our organization really needs support for GitHub Actions: Artifacts v4 Is there a chance this will be done? The cloud version has supported Artifacts v4 for a long time. Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. 14 You must be logged in to vote All reactions 4 replies @wkjung Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply wkjung Nov 21, 2024 - I cannot believe supporting v4 is marked outdated while v3 will be deprecated by November 30, 2024. Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. 8 7 2 All reactions * 8 * 7 * 2 @Cube707 Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply Cube707 Nov 21, 2024 - yeah. I recently ran into the following after running in circles for a while: Recommend switching to v4 as soon as possible! v1-v3 artifact still have these limitations download-artifact@v4+ is not currently supported on GHES yet. If you are on GHES, you must use v3. Made me want to run into a wall head first and I was really looking forward to getting v4 support for GHES Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. 3 All reactions * 3 @shansrii Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply shansrii Nov 21, 2024 - GHES is cursed by not having Artifacts v4 yet and it (v3) is causing lot of noise in our developer community Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. All reactions @brookman Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply edited * {{editor}}'s edit {{actor}} deleted this content . {{editor}}'s edit Something went wrong. brookman Nov 25, 2024 - v3 is one or two orders of magnitude slower at upload and download than necessary. I know because we have replaced it with Azure artifacts and Artifactory where possible (for intermediate artifacts). Still the majority of our build time is waiting until the final artifacts get uploaded... Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. All reactions Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply edited * {{editor}}'s edit {{actor}} deleted this content . {{editor}}'s edit Something went wrong. [277] johnson-dave Nov 20, 2024 - #552 is unbelievably painful UX. Gitlab has this. Not being able to thread on top level comments makes it so hard to track conversations and results in all this quotation noise. Please reconsider adding this feature (is it really that hard?? you already have threaded comments on lines..) I agree with this too - quote-replies instead of threaded replies provide an awful experience. Example: This quote reply. Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. 33 You must be logged in to vote 2 31 All reactions * 2 * 31 1 reply @christophe-kamphaus-jemmic Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply christophe-kamphaus-jemmic Nov 20, 2024 - Btw, discussions have reply feature. Why not on PRs? Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. 16 All reactions * 16 Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply edited * {{editor}}'s edit {{actor}} deleted this content . {{editor}}'s edit Something went wrong. [113] FrancescoBonizzi Nov 20, 2024 - Also #824 (More control over required status checks for pull requests using merge queue) has been abandoned. Sad. This is a common use case where certain PR checks should be skipped based on specific filters. In our monorepo, we have three main projects: * Mobile App * Web * Backend We use three PR action checks, each filtered by folder. As a safety measure, it's crucial to block merging into the main branch if the relevant check hasn't passed. However, without this feature, we're forced to leave all checks optional, which compromises safety. Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. 11 You must be logged in to vote All reactions 2 replies @DouglasBlackwood Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply DouglasBlackwood Nov 21, 2024 - GitHub's merge queue is quite basic and it's meant to stay like that. They haven't invested much in it since its release last year. Did you have a look into advanced merge queues, like Mergify? Some of them have dedicated features for monorepos. Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. 1 All reactions * 1 @FrancescoBonizzi Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply FrancescoBonizzi Nov 21, 2024 - Thanks, I'm looking into it! Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. All reactions Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply [293] mbrevda Nov 20, 2024 - So your closing issue without discussion, reasoning, or explanation - all in the name of transparency? Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. 15 You must be logged in to vote All reactions 5 replies @RokeJulianLockhart Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply edited * {{editor}}'s edit {{actor}} deleted this content . {{editor}}'s edit Something went wrong. RokeJulianLockhart Nov 20, 2024 - #1014 (comment) @mbrevda, all but one were already locked. Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. All reactions @hyperTwitch Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply hyperTwitch Nov 22, 2024 - Some of these were also locked without any discussion, reasoning, or explanation. Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. All reactions @RokeJulianLockhart Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply RokeJulianLockhart Nov 22, 2024 - #1014 (reply in thread) @hyperTwitch, which? Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. All reactions @hyperTwitch Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply edited * {{editor}}'s edit {{actor}} deleted this content . {{editor}}'s edit Something went wrong. hyperTwitch Nov 22, 2024 - Every single ticket I can see in this list is locked and has zero discussion, at least that the public is able to see. Just a post saying that the ticket is now "outdated" and is being closed. As you can see from the discussion here, there are more than a couple tickets on this list which the community does not understand how the feature request is "outdated". Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. 2 All reactions * 2 @RokeJulianLockhart Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply edited * {{editor}}'s edit {{actor}} deleted this content . {{editor}}'s edit Something went wrong. RokeJulianLockhart Nov 22, 2024 - #1014 (reply in thread) @hyperTwitch, there is #828 (comment)... but that's about it XD Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. All reactions Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply [156] moattarwork Nov 20, 2024 - #988 It is very disrespectful of GitHub to kill the roadmap items without explaining what is wrong with supporting enterprise-wide environments and make you stupidly define environments in multiple repo. Especially with microservices implementation, someone should be out of mind to choose Github actions Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. 8 You must be logged in to vote All reactions 1 reply @tetienne Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply tetienne Nov 21, 2024 - I can only agree on this. It would have allowed us to easily enforce some rules on any new repository. That's a shame. Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. 2 All reactions * 2 Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply [603] h-m-f-t Nov 20, 2024 - Thanks for this update, @ankneis. My team at the .gov registry has been really pleased with sub-issues, and I was hoping to see updates on the 3 issues below! Several of our repos feed into a single project, and being able to share cross-repo milestones and labels, track dependencies, and review our project history for errant changes would be so useful to our delivery. * Cross repository milestones and labels #276 * Issues and Projects: Dependencies #956 * Projects: Activity History #816 Prioritization decisions are hard! If my team can ever be useful in your discovery and research efforts, we'd love to be. Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. 15 You must be logged in to vote [?] 4 All reactions * [?] 4 1 reply @julienvincendeau-rc Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply edited * {{editor}}'s edit {{actor}} deleted this content . {{editor}}'s edit Something went wrong. julienvincendeau-rc Nov 21, 2024 - Totaly agree with you I'm starting looking Gitlab beacause of that Please wakeup @github-product-roadmap Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. 1 All reactions * 1 Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply [126] hauntsaninja Nov 20, 2024 - I run up against #347 regularly, would love for Github to add it! One downside of getting rid of these issues is that there's now no easy way to be alerted when a feature I care about has been implemented Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. 45 You must be logged in to vote All reactions 0 replies Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply edited * {{editor}}'s edit {{actor}} deleted this content . {{editor}}'s edit Something went wrong. [229] styfle Nov 20, 2024 - Please add this to your roadmap: * Commenting on unchanged lines in a pull request #347 Frankly, I don't understand why this hasn't been prioritized. Does GitHub not dogfood their own product? How are the GitHub engineers reviewing each other's code? Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. 56 You must be logged in to vote 9 All reactions * 9 3 replies @rjbell4 Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply rjbell4 Nov 20, 2024 - We have hundreds of users that are refusing to use GitHub pull request reviews because of this issue. We'll definitely be raising this with our account team. Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. 4 All reactions * 4 @dufcrule Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply dufcrule Nov 21, 2024 - A sad day for reviews . Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. All reactions @justjake Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply justjake Nov 25, 2024 - Graphite helps Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. All reactions Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply [118] chrishengler Nov 21, 2024 - Commenting unchanged lines is something I've run into relatively rarely, but when it has happened the workaround of "leave a comment on some random changed line and explain where it actually applies to" has been extremely frustrating whether as reviewer or as reviewee. The lack of threaded replies for top-level PR comments was always a baffling design decision, especially when they exist on other kinds of comment and in discussions. Very disappointed to see #347 and #552 off the roadmap, both would be major usability improvements. Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. 30 You must be logged in to vote 9 All reactions * 9 0 replies Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply [441] Crosswind Nov 21, 2024 - I am confused why #930 was removed from the roadmap. Dependabot is asking us to upgrade to v4 in GHES while it remains incompatible. Does the removal of the issue mean GHES will never see support for articat-upload/-download@v4 in GHES? Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. 11 You must be logged in to vote All reactions 0 replies Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply [165] oliversalzburg Nov 23, 2024 - Thank God that you kept the Copilot features on the agenda, and stripped some of this outdated security and user experience stuff. I'm sure this will help me to rely more on your AI offerings, instead of getting work done myself. Glad you realigned with your current product vision. Having this transparently communicated really helps to see that vision unfold. Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. 19 You must be logged in to vote 8 All reactions * 8 0 replies Comment options * {{title}} Something went wrong. Quote reply [429] BerntJulian Nov 25, 2024 - Packages: maven - granular permissions and easy organization sharing #578 Is a necessity if one want so use maven packages on a organization level. Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback. 2 You must be logged in to vote All reactions 0 replies Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment Category Announcements Labels None yet 37 participants @styfle @mbrevda @justjake @joshmanders @rjbell4 @jeherve @h-m-f-t @scamden @moattarwork @brookman @oliversalzburg @Crosswind @DouglasBlackwood @hyperTwitch @reiniertimmer @tetienne @NatoBoram @FrancescoBonizzi @chrishengler @hauntsaninja @alvgaona and others Heading Bold Italic Quote Code Link --------------------------------------------------------------------- Numbered list Unordered list Task list --------------------------------------------------------------------- Attach files Mention Reference Menu * Heading * Bold * Italic * Quote * Code * Link * * Numbered list * Unordered list * Task list * * Attach files * Mention * Reference Select a reply Loading Create a new saved reply 1 reacted with thumbs up emoji 1 reacted with thumbs down emoji 1 reacted with laugh emoji 1 reacted with hooray emoji 1 reacted with confused emoji [?] 1 reacted with heart emoji 1 reacted with rocket emoji 1 reacted with eyes emoji Footer (c) 2024 GitHub, Inc. Footer navigation * Terms * Privacy * Security * Status * Docs * Contact * Manage cookies * Do not share my personal information You can't perform that action at this time.