This is inspired by the post https://nesbitt.io/2026/05/02/a-github-for-maintainers.html#rename-issues, which states:
...a feature request isn’t a problem, a question isn’t a problem, and calling everything that arrives in a maintainer’s inbox an “issue” sets the temperature of the conversation before anyone’s typed a word. I think it contributes more than people realise to the ambient hostility of running a popular project. “Tickets” is boring and neutral and that’s the point.
I understand the inclination to lean towards GitHub's terminology for consistency and portability for users moving from GitHub, but I think they made a mistake with that naming and there is a good way for Tangled to differentiate! Tickets is neutral instead of holding a negative connotation, and, for me at least, imply a more actionable state — iirc his is another change that the Ghostty project made along with vouching, to only have "issues" open for the solvable, fixable tasks - these are tickets.
agreed. I think even we name them as "issues", internally they should be defined as "tickets". issues, discussions, whatever-ticket-like or even PRs can all be implemented as "tickets" and just filtered and rendered differently.
Once we merge everything into same concept, having unified identifier for issues and PRs will be possible and make sense.
One thing I keep dream about is atproto-linear that manages
sh.tangled.ticketrecords. Personal opinion, but it would be super cool.