>That being said, we're certainly the minority when it comes to users on the platform.
But you're the huge majority of people who give GitHub money. It makes sense not to prioritize the pain points of open-source projects when you lose money by hosting them.
We have the diamond level plan from GitHub and have >260 private repos at my company.
We only chose GitHub because we wanted to host our open source repos there. If they don't prioritize the open-source projects then we have no reason to pick them over BitBucket or something else like that.
I only pay Github money to host my private repos because their platform also hosts most of the open source projects I use. If enough of those projects leave for a service that does open source better, I'll be happy to follow them. Otherwise I may as well be using Bitbucket or Gitlab.
We don't pay GitHub precisely because they lack features we can implement in GitLab.
Much of that is due to the OP's requested features that are currently missing. But tbh, it is too late to get us to switch.
> Issues are often filed missing crucial information like reproduction steps or version tested. We’d like issues to gain custom fields, along with a mechanism (such as a mandatory issue template, perhaps powered by a newissue.md in root as a likely-simple solution) for ensuring they are filled out in every issue.
For instance, is something we basically implemented in our local version of GitLab but aren't sharing because our implementation pulls this from internal docs other people can't use. Our CSRs put issues into GitLab but they tend to forget steps while on the phone with a user.
We wouldn't have bothered if we had something like this when I was evaluating GitLab vs. GitHub.
But you're the huge majority of people who give GitHub money. It makes sense not to prioritize the pain points of open-source projects when you lose money by hosting them.