looks great, any plans on integrating with github issues?

the watson[1] gem (for ruby) has a nice feature list you could go off of. leasot + some of those features might be more suitable for people who want to stay in npmland

[1]: https://github.com/nhmood/watson-ruby

Watson looks really nice... Could definitely learn from it.

In github issues you mean exporting a TODO to a github issue? If so, I don't think that belongs in Leasot, but rather an external tool for creating/manipulating Github issues (And I'm sure that kind of tool exists).

Great idea! Integrating with Githooks is super convenient.

This reminds me of watson (https://github.com/nhmood/watson-ruby) which manages TODOs pretty well (with GH support) but doesn't generate the hooks for you unfortunately.

"Besides, if you're not doing any hacking in your free time outside of class anyway, you're probably not cut out for this career."

I really dislike this mentality and it unfortunately seems to be the expressed by a lot of engineers (at least ones that have an internet presence). Just because you don't spend all of your time hacking away doesn't mean you aren't cut out for this career nor does it mean you can't be a great engineer. This kind of mindset is only going to deter potentially good engineers from entering into the field.

Can you imagine "if you are studying accounting and want a job as an accountant, you'd better be doing your friends' taxes pro bono in your free time. Otherwise you're just not cut out for this career."

I'm certainly sympathetic to the idea that if you want to be a developer, it's helpful for programming to be an area of passion. But it's not at all obvious to me why that passion must be expressed in a certain way.

I really like math and computer science, and once I finish grad school, the plan is to have a job in applied math or statistics. Maybe even software. But in college, I didn't spend my free time programming, nor doing regressions just for kicks. In four years of university I did one personal project and two hackathons...total time invested, maybe 3 weekends? But let us not assume this means I'm not passionate about CS and math: I was a double major, I was a teaching assistant for 8 courses, I worked through the school as a private tutor for struggling students, I did research with professors, I published...and on my own time, I relaxed.

> Can you imagine "if you are studying art and want a job as an artist, you'd better be doing drawing and uploading to deviantART in your free time. Otherwise you're just not cut out for this career."

Yes. Yes, I can absolutely imagine judging someone in a partially-artistic field on whether they enjoy making art on their own time. That doesn't apply in every field, sure, and I bet chip designers don't generally go home and make little 8088 clones for fun. But programming is still as much of a craft as an engineering discipline, and I'm suspicious of people who claim aspirations in the field without demonstrating that they actually enjoy it.

In interviews, I ask what projects a candidate has written on their own time. It doesn't have to be on GitHub. It doesn't have to be big. It doesn't have to be generally useful. One of the best responses I got was from a guy who'd been developing his own duck hunting journal for the last decade to track location, weather, etc. I'm not surprised to see that he's the lead engineer at his company now.

I absolutely agree that when hiring an artist, you want that person to be excited about art. I suppose in a nutshell, my thought is: all time is your own time. Choosing to pursue a career in <art | programming | etc> is a monumental investment of your own time into <X>. We ought not judge as terribly different those who spend ~50 hours a week of their own time doing X and getting paid for it and those who spend ~50 hours per week of their own time doing X and getting paid for it and also spend 2 hours per week doing X on the side.

This is particularly true of developers: generally speaking, someone who has the technical ability to be a strong developer could make a good living in finance, accounting, consulting, etc. The very fact that they're applying for a software job rather than something else is a powerful signal that they'd rather spend half their waking hours on software than on something else.

...or am I missing something obvious? - wouldn't be the first time.

I don't disagree with you in general, but we're in the context of people starting new careers. A professional <artist | programmer | etc> will have a portfolio of on-the-job work they've done. A recent grad only has the fact that they've graduated and not anything to really demonstrate their aptitude or abilities. I'd be skeptical of such a student who'd never branched out to do something fun during their entire learning time.

But back to the career professional context. I think maybe I've identified the disconnect. Could it be that asking about personal projects is a way of identifying not just a competent developer but an actual geek? Those are different roles with different requirements. For example, you probably don't want to unleash a geek on your legacy business logic maintenance project. They'll probably be bored and end up breaking stuff in the name of optimization or cleanup. Similarly, you don't want "just" a programmer in your R&D team where you genuinely want and need creative innovation.

So maybe both sides are correct: for some jobs, it's completely appropriate to expect personal projects. For others, it shouldn't be expected at all. What do you think?

If you are serious about getting a job, you damn well better be hacking in your free time if you don't currently have a job in the field. The OP didn't specifically say but, at least for me, if you are in school/unemployed looking for a job you better be hacking in your free time if you expect me to hire you.

If you're not doing X in your free time outside of class anyway, you're probably not cut out for a career in X.

You should be pursuing a degree because it's a thorough & facilitated process of learning what you would be learning on your own anyway. You should be there because it's the fastest, most efficient way to get to the head of the pack of people who do have a tenacious passion for X and do spend a significant part of their free time on X. Every minute you're not doing something in X, you're not improving therein.

You think you're going to have a great career in X just by showing up for class and doing what's assigned? you think that will make for a good practitioner of X compared to others who live-and-breath the subject?

That you don't spend all your time on X doesn't mean you aren't cut out for this career and can't be great. The lead comment was "if you're not doing any X in your free time", not "if you're not spending all your free time on X". Don't wantonly construe the former as the latter.

But fact is, if you're not going above and beyond, you won't get above and beyond.