Looks really nice, I wonder why there hasn't been a project with this exact name and functionality before. When I think about it, "git bug" is quite limiting (the bug vs. feature discussion).
Naming things is hard, but I can see that it might feel unnatural to use "git bug" to track features. Maybe that's totally okay because it does one thing - tracking bugs - very well, and the whole feature roadmap is living in another system/process anyways?
I do want to extend to pull-request and more, so I'll need to at least make space in the CLI commands. Having a "git bug bug" next to a "git bug pr" is quite ugly.
Naming is hard, but I mostly didn't expect to reach that point :-)
Lack of a feature is a bug. After all, it's intended functionality that doesn't work!
It's also a denial of service, since the feature doesn't work yet, and thus should get assigned a CVE.
Isn't everything nowadays a bug?
Only once it gets fixed does it become a feature.
;)
Their logo is a ladybug so everything works out in the end.
Bugzilla has been using the term "bug" to track features for nearly 3 decades now. Doesn't seem to hamper them.