Best GitHub Alternatives (2026): Compared & Rated | Siit

Doren Darmon, HR & Operations Editor · Last updated: August 2026 · Facts verified: August 2026

TL;DR: Teams leave GitHub over Copilot's June 2026 shift to usage-based billing, a walked-back charge on self-hosted Actions runners, and EU data-sovereignty concerns. GitLab is an all-in-one replacement, hosted or self-managed. Forgejo suits lightweight self-hosting. The other platforms fit narrower needs: Atlassian and Microsoft tools, open-source-only hosting, minimalist workflows, and decentralized collaboration.

How We Evaluated GitHub Alternatives

The right GitHub replacement depends first on whether you need a hosted service or a self-hosted forge, and second on whether it serves a solo developer or an enterprise team.

The comparison covers eight platforms across the same axes: price, G2 rating, and the team or use case each platform fits best. Public review and community evidence provided additional context for those comparisons.

GitHub Alternatives at a Glance

GitLab, Bitbucket, and Azure DevOps are commercial platforms with hosted service tiers; Gitea, Forgejo, Codeberg, SourceHut, and Radicle prioritize control, governance, or cost over managed convenience.

Four of the eight have no review-platform listing at all, which is itself a signal: the self-hosted and nonprofit options live on community reputation rather than review sites.

1. GitLab

GitLab is a DevSecOps platform that combines Git hosting, continuous integration and continuous delivery (CI/CD), security scanning, and issue tracking in one product, sold as multi-tenant SaaS, single-tenant SaaS (GitLab Dedicated), or self-managed software. 

The free open-source edition installs on Linux packages, Docker, Kubernetes, or bare metal, including air-gapped environments, which makes GitLab a full toolchain for teams that want these functions under one roof.

GitLab Key Features

• Native CI/CD: Pipelines ship inside the platform, and self-hosted runners carry no limits or platform fees, so compute quotas only apply to GitLab.com shared runners.
• Integrated security scanning: Static application security testing (SAST), dynamic application security testing (DAST), dependency, container, and secret scanning feed a single dashboard, so security review happens inside the merge request instead of a separate tool.
• GitLab Duo Agent Platform: Released January 15, 2026, with Agentic Chat, Code Suggestions, and custom agents; a self-hosted deployment option keeps AI model traffic inside your own infrastructure.
• Automated GitHub migration: The importer carries repositories, issues, pull requests with reviews, labels, milestones, releases, and branch protection rules, a more complete automated import than Bitbucket or Azure DevOps offer.

These features make GitLab the broadest option for teams that want source control, delivery, and security in one installation.

GitLab Pros and Cons

Pros:

• One platform covers source control through security gating, cutting integration overhead across the toolchain.
• Three deployment models, including air-gapped self-managed installs for regulated environments.
• Merge trains and multi-project pipelines handle release flows that GitHub Actions handles less gracefully.

Cons:

• The self-managed reference architecture for up to 1,000 users calls for a dedicated 8 CPU, 16 GB RAM node, plus ongoing maintenance.
• GitHub Actions workflows do not import; conversion to .gitlab-ci.yml is manual.
• Self-hosted AI model traffic requires extra deployment and maintenance work.

GitLab has more built-in functions than the lighter forges and requires more infrastructure and administration.

What Users Say About GitLab

Reviewers on G2, Capterra, and Gartner Peer Insights weigh platform breadth against interface weight.

• The all-in-one consolidation and the .gitlab-ci.yml pipeline design draw the most consistent praise; practitioners on Hacker News call GitLab CI the primary reason they choose it over GitHub for complex workflows.
• The interface is the loudest complaint: G2 tags it confusing, Capterra reviewers call it cluttered and deeply nested, and one self-hosted operator reported multi-second page loads on a 64-core, 256 GiB server with enterprise SSDs.
• Self-managed operators describe heavy upkeep, recurring backup and restore pain, and a Duo assistant that reviewers found slow and immature next to competing AI tools.

User sentiment sourced from G2, Capterra, Gartner Peer Insights, Reddit, and Hacker News as of August 2026.

The reviews favor GitLab's breadth while warning about interface and maintenance costs.

GitLab Pricing

• Free: $0 with 400 compute minutes per month and 10 GiB storage on GitLab.com; the 5-user cap applies only to private top-level groups.
• Premium: $29/user/month billed annually, with 10,000 compute minutes and 500 GiB storage.
• Ultimate: Custom pricing (contact sales), with 50,000 compute minutes and the full security and compliance suite.
• Add-ons: AI features consume GitLab Credits at $1 per credit; Premium includes $12 and Ultimate $24 in monthly credits per user as a limited-time promotion. Extra compute is $10 per 1,000 minutes; extra storage is $5/month per 10 GiB.

Pricing from GitLab's pricing page. Verified August 2026.

Best fit: Regulated or data-sensitive organizations that need self-managed source control with built-in compliance frameworks and audit-ready scanning, and teams whose release process depends on merge trains or multi-project pipelines.

Look for GitLab alternatives if: a lighter self-hosted forge covers your needs; GitLab's operational weight and per-user cost are hard to justify for a small team that wants Git hosting and basic CI.

2. Bitbucket

Bitbucket is Atlassian's Git hosting platform: commits, branches, and pull requests link to work items without leaving either tool. It ships Bitbucket Pipelines for YAML-based CI/CD and is now Git-only, since Mercurial support has been fully removed. It serves teams already standardized on the Atlassian stack.

Bitbucket Key Features

• Native Jira integration: Repository activity updates issues automatically, so ticket status stays in sync without manual updates.
• Bitbucket Pipelines: CI/CD defined in bitbucket-pipelines.yml lives in the repository, with build status visible on commits and pull requests.
• Deployment and merge governance: Environment-level deployment permissions and enforced merge checks, including passing builds and minimum reviewers, gate what reaches production.
• Atlassian Intelligence and Rovo Dev: AI-generated pull-request descriptions are available in the cloud service, and Rovo Dev, released in October 2025, adds an AI code reviewer and command-line interface (CLI).

The feature set is most useful when Jira already anchors the team's development process.

Bitbucket Pros and Cons

Pros:

• Development work and CI stay inside one vendor and one admin model for Atlassian shops.
• Repository-native pipeline YAML keeps CI configuration reviewable alongside the code it builds.
• A Data Center edition exists for teams that must self-host within Atlassian tooling.

Cons:

• Pipelines caps runs at two hours and offers no API for configuring self-hosted runners.
• AI features are cloud-only; Data Center deployments get no native assistant.
• Importing from GitHub brings only the repository; issues, pull requests, and wikis stay behind.

Bitbucket reduces tool switching for Jira users. Teams outside Atlassian still face migration and CI limits.

What Users Say About Bitbucket

Reviews of Bitbucket track Atlassian loyalty closely: G2 and Gartner Peer Insights reviewers inside the stack read differently from Reddit threads outside it.

• G2 reviewers cite Jira linkage and a clean pull-request flow as reasons to stay.
• Feature stagnation is the recurring criticism: r/devops threads describe under-investment, and a May 2026 G2 review places its in-PR AI capabilities well behind GitLab's.
• The new per-slot charge for self-hosted runners drew bait-and-switch accusations on Reddit, since GitHub and GitLab charge no platform fee for self-hosted runners.

User sentiment sourced from G2, Capterra, and Reddit as of August 2026.

The reviews tie Bitbucket's value to Jira integration and raise concerns about product investment and runner costs.

Bitbucket Pricing

• Free: $0 for up to 5 users, with 50 build minutes per month and 1 GB of Git Large File Storage (LFS).
• Standard: $3.65/user/month with 2,500 build minutes and 5 GB LFS storage.
• Premium: $7.25/user/month with 3,500 build minutes, deployment permissions, enforced merge checks, and IP allowlisting.
• Add-ons: Self-hosted runners cost $15/slot/month (1 slot on Free and Standard, 2 on Premium); extra build minutes run $10/month per 1,000.
• Data Center: Quote only; Atlassian no longer publishes tiered figures.

Pricing from Bitbucket's pricing page. Verified August 2026.

Best fit: Engineering organizations whose project management and documentation already run on Jira and Confluence, where automatic issue updates and ticket-to-deployment traceability justify staying inside one vendor's stack.

Look for Bitbucket alternatives if: you sit outside the Atlassian stack; without Jira, reviewers question the value, and the extension marketplace is smaller than GitHub's.

3. Azure DevOps

Azure DevOps combines Repos for Git hosting, Boards for work tracking, Pipelines for CI/CD, Artifacts for package management, and Test Plans, plus an on-premises server option. It fits organizations already committed to Azure and Active Directory, particularly in finance, healthcare, and government.

Azure DevOps Key Features

• Multi-stage Azure Pipelines: YAML pipelines with release approvals handle complex enterprise release structures with stage-level control.
• Azure Boards: Work-item tracking, Kanban, sprint planning, and delivery plans cover portfolio management that GitHub still lacks.
• Azure Artifacts: NuGet, Maven, npm, and Python package hosting with upstream sources, wired directly into Pipelines.
• Extensions Marketplace: 1,000+ extensions, including Docker, Slack, Sentry, and GitHub integrations, extend the suite beyond its native scope.

Azure DevOps stands out for enterprise planning and release controls, not just repository hosting.

Azure DevOps Pros and Cons

Pros:

• The first self-hosted parallel CI job carries no platform fee and unlimited minutes.
• A financially backed 99.9% service level agreement (SLA) covers the core services, alongside an on-premises server option for procurement-driven buyers.
• Boards delivers enterprise planning depth (work-item hierarchies, test management, reporting) beyond what GitHub offers.

Cons:

• Microsoft's overlapping GitHub and Azure DevOps products create uncertainty about long-term investment.
• No native AI assistant; Copilot integration requires a separate GitHub Copilot subscription, and the Boards-to-Copilot workflow only supports GitHub repositories, not Azure Repos.
• Repository import from GitHub covers Git data only, and LFS files need a separate manual step; work items and pipelines must be rebuilt.

The suite remains capable for established Microsoft shops. Product overlap complicates long-term planning.

What Users Say About Azure DevOps

Enterprise entrenchment shapes what reviewers say about Azure DevOps on Gartner Peer Insights and in practitioner threads.

• Practitioners on Hacker News and r/dotnet value the integrated suite and rate multi-stage Pipelines above GitHub Actions for complex enterprise builds.
• The interface draws sustained criticism: reviewers describe a clunky, slow UI, no unified dashboard for pull requests and builds, and a permissions model several find incomprehensible.
• Strategic ambiguity is the distinctive worry: threads across Reddit and Hacker News debate whether the product is in maintenance mode while GitHub receives Microsoft's investment.

User sentiment is sourced from G2, Capterra, Gartner Peer Insights, Reddit, and Hacker News.

Feedback favors Azure DevOps for pipeline depth but criticizes its interface and uncertain product direction.

Azure DevOps Pricing

• Free tier: First 5 users free; one Microsoft-hosted parallel job with 1,800 minutes per month; one self-hosted parallel job with unlimited minutes; 2 GiB of Artifacts storage.
• Basic: $6/user/month from the sixth user; Visual Studio subscribers get Basic access at no extra cost and do not count against the free five.
• Basic + Test Plans: $52/user/month.
• Extra parallel jobs: $40/month per Microsoft-hosted job and $15/month per self-hosted job, both with unlimited minutes.
• Artifacts overage: $2/GiB, stepping down to $0.25/GiB at the highest volumes.

Pricing from the Azure DevOps pricing page. Verified August 2026.

Best fit: Windows Server and Active Directory shops, and regulated enterprises that need work-item hierarchies, test management, and audit controls inside one Microsoft-governed suite.

Look for Azure DevOps alternatives if: you want clearer evidence of continued product investment; the overlap with GitHub remains unresolved and creates long-term planning risk.

4. Gitea

Gitea is an open-source, self-hosted Git service. It bundles issues, a wiki, a package registry, and GitHub Actions-compatible CI in one service.

Gitea Key Features

• Single-binary deployment: One Go executable installs on x86, ARM, and PowerPC; the official docs say 2 CPU cores and 1 GB of RAM suffice for small teams.
• Gitea Actions: GitHub Actions-compatible YAML has been built in since version 1.19, so existing workflow files carry over with minimal rewriting.
• Package registry: 20+ formats, including npm, Maven, PyPI, NuGet, and container images, replace a separate artifact server.
• Built-in GitHub migration: The migration form imports repositories along with issues, labels, milestones, releases, pull requests, and reviews.

Gitea includes enough built-in tools for many small and mid-size teams.

Gitea Pros and Cons

Pros:

• Official docs state a Raspberry Pi 3 is powerful enough for small workloads.
• Self-hosting gives total control over repository data, with no third-party terms or telemetry.
• MIT licensing permits teams to modify and redistribute the software without copyleft obligations.

Cons:

• No bundled CI runners; operators install and maintain their own automation infrastructure.
• Backup is basic, with no automatic backup feature, so restores depend on custom scripts.
• Domains, trademarks, and IP moved to for-profit Gitea Ltd in 2022, and the project is now described as open core; governance-minded contributors forked to Forgejo.

Gitea keeps infrastructure requirements low, but runners, backups, and governance still require careful review.

What Users Say About Gitea

Gitea's G2 reviews and its Reddit threads circle three themes: footprint, Actions maturity, and governance.

• The resource footprint dominates praise; one r/git user reported a large drop in memory use after moving to Gitea.
• Gitea Actions draws mixed reviews: artifact uploads are fiddly, and variables do not exactly match GitHub's API, so complex workflows need adjustment.
• The 2022 corporate takeover still colors sentiment; Hacker News threads flag that version 1.22 is the last with a transparent upgrade path to Forgejo. Version choice therefore becomes a migration decision.

User sentiment sourced from G2, Gartner Peer Insights, Reddit, and Hacker News.

The feedback favors Gitea's low resource use and warns about Actions compatibility and project governance.

Gitea Pricing

• Open source: Free and MIT-licensed, with unlimited users and repositories when self-hosted.
• Gitea Enterprise: $9.50 to $19/user/month with a one-year commitment; adds single sign-on (SSO) via SAML (Security Assertion Markup Language), audit logs, Kubernetes autoscaling runners, and priority support with an SLA. A 30-day free trial and nonprofit and small-company discounts are available.
• Gitea Cloud: A pay-as-you-go hosted option with no published per-user list price.

Pricing from Gitea's pricing page. Verified August 2026.

Best fit: Small and mid-size teams with basic ops capacity that want GitHub Actions-compatible CI on their own hardware, including homelab and edge deployments where every megabyte of RAM counts.

Look for Gitea alternatives if: community governance matters to you; Forgejo publishes all security notices publicly, unlike Gitea.

5. Forgejo

Forgejo is a self-hosted Git forge operated by the Berlin nonprofit Codeberg e.V. Versions 9.0 and later use the GNU General Public License (GPL) v3+ to prevent proprietary relicensing. Development runs on the project's own infrastructure, not GitHub.

Forgejo Key Features

• Copyleft licensing: GPL v3+ from version 9.0 onward blocks proprietary relicensing of community contributions.
• Forgejo Actions: The same YAML syntax as GitHub Actions keeps workflow files portable without a converter.
• Public security notices: Advisories go to everyone, not only subscribers.
• Federation in progress: ForgeFed and ActivityPub work is an active primary goal; repository star federation has shipped, and broader features remain experimental.

Forgejo's current advantages center on portable Actions workflows and public security notices.

Forgejo Pros and Cons

Pros:

• Community governance uses a Developer Certificate of Origin instead of copyright assignment, so contributors keep their rights.
• Predictable long-term support (LTS): v15.0 is supported through July 15, 2027.
• Built-in migration imports GitHub issues and pull requests, and v16.0 (released July 16, 2026) shows batch progress during large imports.

Cons:

• No paid enterprise support exists; sustainability rests on volunteers, grants, and donations.
• The project itself flags advanced project management and CI requirements as not yet covered.
• Federation remains experimental, so it is not ready for production use.

Forgejo requires full operational responsibility, and federation remains experimental.

What Users Say About Forgejo

Forgejo is the default self-hosting recommendation in r/selfhosted and Hacker News threads from 2025 and 2026.

• Self-hosters praise the single binary and low memory use.
• High-profile migrations reinforce trust: FFmpeg moved to Forgejo, and Organic Maps switched after Microsoft blocked its GitHub account.
• The caution raised in r/devops threads is operational: backups, monitoring, disaster recovery, and updates fall entirely on your team, a cost that can outweigh the benefit when staff time is thin.

User sentiment sourced from Reddit and Hacker News.

Community feedback favors Forgejo's resource use and governance while emphasizing the work required to operate it.

Forgejo Pricing

• Self-hosted: Free, GPL v3+ licensed, with no paid tiers or per-user fees.
• Support: No commercial support plans exist; Codeberg e. V. funds the project through donations and grants.

Licensing from Forgejo's GPL announcement; support information from Forgejo's FAQ. Verified August 2026.

Best fit: Teams that treat forge governance as a security property: advisories stay public, contributions stay copyleft, and no company can take the project proprietary, which is exactly the failure mode that created the fork.

Look for Forgejo alternatives if: you need vendor accountability; with no commercial support or SLA, an outage or failed upgrade is yours alone to fix.

6. Codeberg

Codeberg hosts free and open-source software (FOSS) projects on Forgejo. Members elect the board and vote on platform policy, and the Terms of Use exclude proprietary software and projects consisting mostly of AI-generated code.

Codeberg Key Features

• Community ownership: A registered nonprofit with an elected board makes platform decisions by member vote, not corporate strategy.
• Forgejo underneath: Full Forge features, including the built-in GitHub migration path, without running a server yourself.
• CI options: Woodpecker CI and hosted Forgejo Actions are provided, under stricter resource and time constraints than commercial platforms and with no free macOS runners.
• AI-training protection: Codeberg states it will not use hosted code to train AI tools and actively serves garbage data to AI scrapers.

Codeberg provides hosted Forgejo for FOSS maintainers who prefer nonprofit control and strict AI policies.

Codeberg Pros and Cons

Pros:

• The hosted Forgejo service removes server maintenance for FOSS maintainers.
• Flagship FOSS migrations validate it: Zig moved in 2025, and Gentoo established a presence.
• Over 300,000 repositories and 200,000 registered users as of November 2025 put it past experimental scale.

Cons:

• Proprietary software is excluded outright, so commercial teams cannot host closed code there.
• Private repositories cap at 100 MB per user, and crossing 10 GiB of repositories requires an exception request.
• Distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks caused outages in February and December 2025, and there is no SLA or paid support tier.

Codeberg removes hosting work for eligible projects, but its FOSS-only rules and service limits exclude many commercial teams.

What Users Say About Codeberg

With no G2 or Capterra listing, Codeberg's public record lives in Hacker News and Reddit threads, and it is unusually detailed there.

• Commenters call it good enough for most day-to-day workflows and more responsive than GitHub, with nonprofit governance cited as the trust differentiator.
• Maintainers who moved report less interaction, fewer contributions, and lower visibility than on GitHub.
• Practical friction also comes up: free CI capacity requires a justified access request, and issue search trails GitHub's.

User sentiment is sourced from Hacker News and Reddit.

The discussion favors Codeberg's governance and responsiveness while noting weaker visibility and CI access.

Codeberg Pricing

• Hosting: Free for projects that follow the Terms of Use; no paid tiers exist.
• Optional membership: 24 EUR/year minimum for individuals and 100 EUR/year for legal entities, with a 12 EUR reduced rate available on request.

Pricing from Codeberg's membership page. Verified August 2026.

Best fit: Open-source maintainers who want GitHub-style hosting with a formal, member-voted guarantee that their code never feeds AI training, a policy no other major forge has put in binding terms.

Look for Codeberg alternatives if: any of your code is proprietary or you need contractual support; Codeberg's scope and volunteer model exclude both.

7. SourceHut

SourceHut is a minimalist hosted forge where contributors submit patches with git send-email to project mailing lists instead of opening pull requests. Every page works without JavaScript, there is no tracking or advertising, the entire stack is 100% free and open-source software, and the service is currently in public alpha.

SourceHut Key Features

• Email patch workflow: Threaded, searchable mail archives replace the pull-request UI, so review happens in any mail client with plain-text tools.
• No-JavaScript interface: Every feature works in a text browser or script, which suits automation-heavy and low-bandwidth workflows.
• No AI, by policy: The platform advertises no AI features whatsoever.
• Fully open source: The whole stack can be self-hosted at no cost.

SourceHut favors portable, text-based workflows over the familiar web pull-request model.

SourceHut Pros and Cons

Pros:

• Pages load fast with zero tracking, making it one of the quickest forges to browse.
• Scriptable, plain-text workflows integrate cleanly with terminal-centric development.
• Mailing-list review leaves maintainers with complete local archives of project discussion in standard formats.

Cons:

• Public alpha status carries stability caveats for production use.
• Mailing lists are plain text only, with no inline images or video in review discussion.
• Documentation is sparse and in places incomplete.

SourceHut rewards teams already comfortable with email patches, while web-first contributors face a substantial workflow change.

What Users Say About SourceHut

Commentary on SourceHut in Hacker News and self-hosting threads splits more on workflow preference than quality.

• Hacker News commenters group it with Forgejo and Codeberg as noticeably faster than GitHub or GitLab.
• Privacy-focused developers shortlist it for the no-tracking, no-JavaScript, no-AI stance.
• The email patch workflow is the recurring deal-breaker: teams weighing it conclude that contributors accustomed to web-based merge requests face a steep adjustment.

User sentiment sourced from Hacker News.

Feedback favors SourceHut's speed and privacy but treats its email workflow as the main adoption barrier.

SourceHut Pricing

• Amateur hackers: €4/month.
• Typical hackers: €8/month.
• Professional hackers: €12/month.
• Notes: All tiers include full access to every service; payment is only required to host your own projects, contributors sign up free, existing users keep grandfathered rates, and financial aid is offered to anyone the fee would strain.

Pricing from SourceHut's pricing page. Verified August 2026.

Best fit: Maintainers who already live in the terminal and want project discussion archived in open, local formats rather than held in a web platform; the paid model also means your data do not fund the service.

Look for SourceHut alternatives if: your contributors expect a web pull-request flow; the email workflow filters out casual contributions, and alpha status rules it out for risk-averse teams.

8. Radicle

Radicle lets Git repositories replicate across peer nodes rather than living on a central server, while issues, discussions, and reviews are stored as Git objects called Collaborative Objects. The result is a peer-to-peer code collaboration stack that can keep working offline.

Radicle Key Features

• No central server: Repositories replicate across peers, so no company controls the network or can suspend an account.
• Social artifacts in Git: Issues and reviews travel with the repository as Collaborative Objects, surviving any single node's disappearance.
• Local-first operation: Everything works offline, and the node syncs when connectivity returns.
• Cryptographic identity: Code and social artifacts are signed, and the protocol uses no blockchain or cryptocurrency.

Radicle prioritizes local control and independence from a central operator over the convenience of a hosted service.

Radicle Pros and Cons

Pros:

• Immune to account suspensions and platform policy changes; there is no operator to appeal to.
• Licensed under MIT and Apache 2.0, with the project stating it will remain free software, funded by Radworks grants.
• Radicle Desktop, released June 13, 2025, lowers the command-line-only barrier.

Cons:

• The project has disclosed a security vulnerability in signed references.
• No central service layer means weaker latency and uptime guarantees than hosted forges.
• Available integrations and tooling remain limited compared with GitHub, GitLab, or Gitea.

Radicle fits teams that value offline operation and censorship resistance more than hosted-service guarantees.

What Users Say About Radicle

Radicle has no review-platform listing, and community discussion is thinner than for the mainstream forges.

• It appears in r/selfhosted round-ups of GitHub alternatives among developers exploring decentralized options.
• It is absent from company-migration lists on r/devops, where GitLab, Forgejo, and Gitea dominate the recommendations.
• Where it is discussed, the draw is full data sovereignty and offline capability rather than feature parity with hosted platforms.

User sentiment sourced from Reddit.

The available discussion centers on sovereignty and offline use rather than broad company adoption.

Radicle Pricing

• Free: The protocol and clients are MIT and Apache 2.0 licensed at no cost, and the project states they will remain free software.
• Infrastructure: You run your own node; no hosted tier or paid plan exists.

Pricing from Radicle's FAQ. Verified August 2026.

Best fit: Developers for whom censorship resistance is the requirement: projects that cannot risk a hosting account being frozen, and workflows that must keep functioning fully offline.

Look for Radicle alternatives if: you want a conventional hosted experience with uptime guarantees, web-based onboarding for casual contributors, and an established integration network.

Where Siit Fits

Siit handles the internal request layer around engineering as an AI Service Desk. Source control, CI/CD, and code review remain in the development platform. 

Siit has native integrations with GitHub and GitLab among its 500+ connectable apps, so internal support can escalate employee requests to engineering and keep context in sync between the service desk and the tracker.

Employees raise those requests where they already work: mentioning @Siit in a public Slack channel, sending it a DM, or right-clicking a message in a private channel or DM. Turning any message into a ticket is an admin action. 

If a GitHub migration lands on your IT team, Siit handles the resulting access requests, credential questions, and tooling tickets; explore Siit's integrations.