[Request] Allow threaded conversations on PRs and Issues

[daniellepintz]

Currently it is not possible to create a threaded comment on a PR (except for comments directly on the code) or Issue like it is in GH discussions. this would be a nice feature to have.

[tchaton]

Hey @daniellepintz.

Do you mean something similar to Slack to discuss deeper some specific comments? I think it is worth exploring, but IMO this could have a negative impact on the reflection flow and the creation of a strong consensus on issues and RFCs. Commenters might skip the threads.

[daniellepintz]

I mean something like GH discussions, for example the comment I am making right now is threaded. I'd like to be able to do the same thing on PRs and Issues, especially PRs since often someone will make a comment on the PR that requires a direct response

[afilbert]

Second this. It's really annoying and messy to have to "Quote reply" to top-level PR comments when a thread would keep things topical.

[cylewitruk]

Omg please implement this... As mentioned 3 years ago this exists for discussions and still not for PR's... It's not about hiding information in threads, it's about keeping discussions around a PR organized. Nothing prevents having multiple views for users to choose from, i.e. threaded vs. most recent.

[rachmcnamara]

Please add this feature - this causes a lot of angst in our org and it would be AMAZING to be able to have threaded conversations without having to pepper them throughout the code!

[seanweiss91]

As a temporary work around we've been editing comments that someone else has made. So you could reply by editing at the bottom with a header such as:

Reply - Name

Your reply here.

Of course this will only work if you have permissions for this kind of edit.

[trgardos]

+1 from me too. GitLab allows this btw, :-)

[kavehv]

+1...as does Bitbucket.

[fellipetav]

I really don't understand why @github-staff had not implemented that yet.

[p0fi]

This should definitely be a thing!

[thclark]

I actually disagree, my sense is that if an issue is large enough to have to have many smaller threads of conversation, the issue is probably too large and should be subsumed under a larger group (eg using the new 'tracked in' feature, or a third party tool).

In practice I suppose it does happen that issues become behemoths - especially early in app prototyping when you can have issues like "Develop the app" 🤣. So it's not like I'd despair if this feature came in, but I would be pretty nonplussed overall.

[freakyfelt]

The problem for me is when reviewing a PR without a specific line (more of a general comment). I end up using an arbitrary line with a note at the top saying as much to allow for commenting

[daniellepintz]

@thclark what about PRs, do you agree this would be useful there?

[thclark]

We already have them in PRs - sub conversations that can then be resolved (although they can only be created within a review). The conversation creation context is worth thinking about, though - each “thread” relates to a granular thing (“start conversation” on a line of code, in that case).

Which could be a good model for how to implement this in issues, if you’re going to…

A generic scramble of threads and responses that people have or haven’t bothered to put in the thread may well reduce clarity (particularly for big OSS projects), because things are no longer presented in timeline order, meaning you then need to pick apart what should or shouldn’t be in a thread (relying on humans to structure information correctly guarantees you will fail to structure information!!!!).

And yet conversations on PRs work well, because of the initial association with a granular thing (which you can then build a more comprehensive feature around). How about something like “propose solution” and/or “ask question” buttons to create a specific context for threads within issues? You’ve then got additional functionality that you can build onto that later (“2 questions unresolved”, or “solution available”).

[p0fi]

Actually the "ask a question" feature which would offer threaded answers sounds not too bad.

[bangank36]

+1 from me, I can see github supports threaded comments in discussions already, would be great if it can be ported into PR and Issue, even as optional

[liamkeily]

When a user posts actionable feedback on a pull request, it would also be good to mark it as resolved without resorting to posting another comment. Threaded conversations on PR's and Issues should allow that via the "Resolve Conversation" button:

[Sti2nd]

Duplicate of #8469 ?

[fellipetav]

Hi,

Indeed, that refers only to PRs. This one refers to issues as well.

[scottmarlow]

Duplicate of #8469 ?

Yes and also note that #8469 links to a roadmap item for addressing this issue via github/roadmap#552

Thanks @daniellepintz for starting this important discussion!

[lambertjosh]

FYI that roadmap item is now closed as not planned.

[pbylina]

We've migrated from bitbucket, and this is actually an unpleasant surprise :(

[fellipetav]

@github-staff

[bdetweiler]

I've been struggling with this as well since moving from an Atlassian team to a GitHub team. It's really making me realize how much better BitBucket is.

[xavier-symbe]

Same here. Surprising, since otherwise Github has been ahead of the curve on most other comparisons.

[mpl1018]

Hi everyone! We've created a free GitHub App + Action that enables threads on PR issue comments and can also be fully integrated with Slack. You can test it out in this PR.
More info on how to use it here.

Demo.mp4

@daniellepintz @tchaton @rachmcnamara @seanweiss91 @trgardos @kavehv @fellipetav @freakyfelt @bangank36 @liamkeily @scottmarlow @pbylina

[romanr]

This requires external tool subscription? and unclear if it's free or not.