fogbugz

FogBugz was originally an internal tool meant to facilitate writing Fog Creek's original first product (CityDesk, a CMS).

How much of the FogBugz code had to be modified to accommodate static typing, even with global type inference?

Third, FogBugz was a complex, mature application by the time Django or Rails were even considerations for production systems.

Writing Wasabi meant that Fogbugz had a more predictable development schedule controlled and instrumented by FogCreek.

A few of the oldest FogBugz tests are in `unitTest.asp` and were written in Wasabi.

We are a small, highly effective team that uses tools like Fogbugz and Slack.

To address your points: > Fun fact: Wasabi has more unit tests than FogBugz.

We've been using jsMath on our FogBugz wiki internally for a while now.

FogBugz Ocelot doesn't use it, so there's rarely any reason to modify it.

However, FogBugz has its share of problems, and I'd gladly move to something else, if only there was something better.

As to why not FogBugz — a number of reasons and annoyances.

Looked at FogBugz several times, but the pricing always put us off.

I can't find solid numbers about bug-tracker marketshare, but if I type "FogBugz vs" into Google, it throws up Jira as the first result.

Even relatively minor changes (we wanted FogBugz to detect cases based on "#1234" case numbers not a "Case #1234" string, because if you don't write in English, writing "case #1234" is unnatural) are refused.

My take-away from that was that Atlassian had a proposition that made companies customers before those companies could afford Fogbugz.