Would have more confidence if this was hosted at GitLab rather than GitHub.
To be more specific about what I was saying earlier: the differences in form factor, features, layout, etc. are all going to be unfamiliar to those who don't know GitLab--so, presenting them a migration guide to GitLab from GitHub that's also already hosted on GitHub, with the layout and all the features they're already familiar with, is going to have a higher conversion factor than otherwise. It's not necessary that they randomly browse to this guide. Guides work because there's a smooth transition between the easy/familiar and the objective. By starting on the familiar, the guide is more inviting to follow.
I mean, it's just a git directory with a README.md--it's not like it can't be both places, but the argument from dogfooding I don't think is a good one.
It doesn't make much sense to put a thing for people who don't use GitLab on the thing they don't use.
What remains is whether you appreciate the PR stunt (using a competitor to market yourself), which is another issue entirely.
To quote from that readme: "Secondly, I am not affiliated with Gitlab."
> Secondly, I am not affiliated with Gitlab.
So this would be no “own” dog food at all.
If you're paying didn't GitHub switch up their payed plans a few years ago to allow for unlimited private repos rather than the 12 max then pay for more?
Issues are kind of an intentionally vague concept I guess though... they aren't necessarily bugs.
Can we get "Merge Request" with the GitHub icon?
I am sorry you felt that way. But to be honest, I don't feel that this is bad. I myself don't tell people to abandon Github and move to Gitlab. I just write a small guide to instruct people and whom I targeted happens to use Github a lot, so I put it there. Just that. And if you look carefully, I am a heavy Github user and I didn't stop or fully migrated from Github to Gitlab. I did not criticize anything about Github in the guide, also.