Where do you keep Issues, Pull Requests, Wikis, Discussions, project boards, and everything else? (rhetorical question.)

These days, the problem with cloud-hosted Git platforms is not where to push your code. Replicating repositories across multiple providers is relatively easy, and Git has always been good at that. The harder problem is that successful teams end up accumulating a lot more than source code around their repositories, and much of that information becomes just as important as the code itself.

Bug reports, feature requests, documentation, design discussions, code reviews, project planning, CI/CD configuration, and years of historical context all tend to live inside platforms such as GitHub. While the Git repository itself is portable, all of that surrounding data is often much harder to migrate cleanly, especially if a team has built workflows and integrations around a particular provider.

That, in my view, is one of the main reasons so many companies are heavily dependent on GitHub. Moving the code elsewhere is usually straightforward; moving the entire development process, with all of its history, metadata, and institutional knowledge, is not. When GitHub goes down, the question is often less about where you can push your next commit and more about how easily you can recreate the rest of the environment that your team relies on every day.

▲

dijit 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

(I upvoted you, for asking the real questions, but to answer)

> Where do you keep Issues,

Youtrack

> Pull Requests,

Gerrit, it's way better for code review

> Wikis,

Also Youtrack, but other software exists that's specific for this, I have seen Confluence used a lot and while I don't recommend: that's usually the case.

> Discussions,

As far away from code as possible, right now it's Zulip

> project boards,

Youtrack, though usually in companies they use Jira for this.

> and everything else? (rhetorical question.)

In proper tools that are designed to solve a specific need, not try to do everything: badly.

Now, a sane person will respond to me with the fact that I haven't removed any single points of failure, I've actually just added more of them. They'd be right! The differences is that it makes the stack a bit more flexible and composable. Migration of, say, the Wiki, doesn't make major issues because it's already somewhat decoupled.

	▲	rsyring 19 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> In proper tools that are designed to solve a specific need, not try to do everything: badly. And when you want to search for that one thing that you know got documented somewhere, but can't remember where, how many systems do you have to search? That's one of the reasons I like the code, issues, docs (code or wiki depending), and discussions all in the same repo. Not to be confused with Chat, which is more ephemeral, and is, for us, in Slack. But we have to be mindful of chat discussions that turn substantive and make sure we copy that info to a Discussion in the repo (which can be annoying to do and annoying when it's not done).
	▲	hluska 20 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I don’t get it. That’s a lot of failure points to incur in the name of flexibility.

▲

KronisLV 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Where do you keep Issues, Pull Requests, Wikis, Discussions, project boards, and everything else? (rhetorical question.)

I think it's worthy of a non-rhetorical answer anyways: https://docs.gitlab.com/user/project/import/github/#imported...

None of those might be perfect, but at least people are trying. Even something like Gitea and other forges that you can host yourself have support for most of the basic functionality you'd expect.

However, If we ever wanted a setup where it's easy to mirror rather than import stuff, we'd probably want to look in the direction of storing everything in folders within the repo, e.g. a file/folder for every issue, for every Wiki page etc. Most of the mirroring seems to only concern the repo itself, not the stuff around it, for example: https://docs.gitlab.com/user/project/repository/mirror/