If we move to GitLab... What do we do about the repos with their canonicals on GitHub? Should those move, because GitLab fixes many of the workflow problems and barrier to entry issues that people have with Gerrit?
Which seems to go with the ideas below of simplifying/normalising workflows too...
I think we should still mirror to GitHub
When it comes to documentation for onboarding new developers, I'd appreciate if we decreased the number of systems where people are supposed to clone a code repository from and create and share proposed patches for it. See also phab:T109939 about being able to identify which repositories are canonically hosted on Github (because that currently also makes our development statistics less complete).
My personal vote would be to move all canonical git hosting + code review to Gitlab. But I would also keep read-only mirrors of everything on GitHub for the reason I mentioned below, volunteer (and staff) portfolios.
+1 on continuing to mirror to GitHub. My reason for that is simply one of engagement. For better or worse, GitHub has become *the* social network for source available software development. Part of what participating in Wikimedia FOSS projects provides to volunteers is a portfolio of their work that can be shared with potential employers. GitHub is the most asked for way to share such things. If we take that incentive away, we will still have technical volunteers but we will also have a less compelling story to attract and retain them.
If I understand the pricing page correctly, push mirroring is only included in paid plans.
That is not correct. The pricing page lists, "Remote repository pull mirroring" as the only mention of "mirror". The local instance I have seems to confirm this. Push mirroring is in core, pull mirroring is not. This is exactly the same as Gerrit.
