The author mentions that if GitHub was open source, they would implement these features themselves.
Gitlab[1] is an open source repository manager that supports local installs as well as public hosting at gitlab.com. If author appreciates open source, perhaps they should put their efforts into improving an existing open source option rather than relying on a proprietary solution.
The length of the merge request cycle depends on the complexity of the feature. Simple fixes get merged in days, average features take weeks and sometimes the review suggestions take multiple months to implement. After merge it will release in weeks so since we're on a monthly rel cycle.
At GitLab we would welcome contributions. More than 1000 people already contributed and everyone is welcome. Also see my other answer in this thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10905756
I cannot fathom why people are still actively supporting GitHub.
Even if you ignore the ethical reasons, which if you are an open source developer really should suffice, GitLab is better and more customizable in every way.
Supporting it benefits yourself and all of the FOSS community.
Git repositories do have a full copy of the codebase (unless using some large-file management, same issue with largefiles extension for hg).
But gitlab/github are more than just git repositories -- issue tracking, discussions, wiki, etc. One version control which includes most of this as part of the repository is fossil, http://fossil-scm.org
This was my first thought after reading it. I've used gitlab.com, also locally, and it is ok. Presumably people will want to stick with github due to popularity though.
Gitlab[1] is an open source repository manager that supports local installs as well as public hosting at gitlab.com. If author appreciates open source, perhaps they should put their efforts into improving an existing open source option rather than relying on a proprietary solution.
[1] https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/tree/master