Introducing GitHub Issues to Discourse

(cpradio) #1

Official Website: GitHub Issues to Discourse Mover
GitHub: GitHub - discourse/github-issues-to-discourse

The Discourse Team and I are pleased to announce our Import GitHub Issues into Discourse tool. The idea behind it is fairly simple, authenticate with GitHub, select the issues you wish to import, and then provide your Discourse credentials and let it do the rest (as shown in the screenshots below)!

Authenticate with GitHub

Select a Repository

Select the Issues you want to Import

Enter your Discourse Details and start the Import Process


If you have repositories that have open issues and you have a Discourse instance where you would like these issues to reside, please give it a go!

We would love to hear any feedback to your experience with the tool, any improvements that may be useful, and more importantly if you encounter any issues or errors in this topic.

Edit - 8/8/2016: Update the URL to GitHub Issues to Discourse Mover

How Does Team Discourse Use Discourse?
[DEPRECATED] The Github Linkback Plugin
(Jakob Borg) #2

While the idea seems simple, I don’t understand why you would want to do this. :slight_smile: The GitHub issue tracker is … an issue tracker, with

  • issue numbers
  • milestones
  • open/closed states (that don’t block discussion)
  • issues that can be referred to and marked as closed from commits
  • automatic links to and from pull requests
  • etc

Discourse is a forum. Why would you want to import issues into it?

(Erlend Sogge Heggen) #3

The most common use case is when an issue tracker gets overburdened with “Discussion” and “Enhancement” issues. provides a very relevant case study:

Discourse for discussions: superiority to e.g. GitHub
(Eli the Bearded) #4

Does this work with self-hosted GitHub Enteprise?

(Jeff Atwood) #5

I strongly suspect that it would, assuming the necessary HTML pages are accessible to the plugin, e.g. not behind a firewall of some kind?

(Eli the Bearded) #6

Well, the interface certainly does not. Which is why I asked. It explicitly goes to Sign in to GitHub · GitHub

And, from experience, Github puts api stuff on a different hostname, while Enterprise puts it on the same hostname, but with a URL prefix.

(cpradio) #7

Yeah, it isn’t setup in a way to change the API endpoint along with the client id and secret id to authorize application access. I’m not even sure what that would have to look like to be honest… if users had to enter their own API url for Github, and create their own developer oauth client id and secret key. It’d raise the bar really high for using it.

(Robert Lee Louviere) #8

Seems like a shared dropbox account and a notepad file would be more appropriate.

Then you don’t even have to login continually. Just open a file, make an edit and save.

Then it’s integrated into your OS of choice, naturally. And it doesn’t become a barrier to your workflow or communication.

It’s obvious that a website designed for bugtracking is inferior in every way.

(Robert Lee Louviere) #9

But if pagination is a barrier to communication,

Wouldn’t taking all discussion offsite become a barrier to resolving the bug?

Oh, idea… lightbulb.

If you can get GitHub to onebox the whole Discourse discussion thread (on a separate tab or something)… I think that would be the best of both worlds.

You could isolate the discussion, but then people wouldn’t get shuffled off to another site.

love the new vertical scrollbar btw <3 <3 <3

(Jeff Atwood) #10

No, the whole idea is to take discussion off site, so there are less bike shed discussions. Decisions can be carried forward without distractions.

(Robert Lee Louviere) #11

Ok, so you have a few options.

  1. Lock the GitHub ticket. Lose the ability to ask for pertinent additional information unless you unlock the thread.
  2. Do the OP suggestion. Leave the GitHub open. The conversation splits and bike-shedding happens on the ticket anyway.
  3. Do the OP suggestion. Lock the GitHub thread. Sort through all the bikeshedding on here for pertinent information, pushing the problem back 1 step to obscurity.
  4. OR the MOST LIKELY THING. Do the OP suggestion. Lock the GitHub thread. Ignore any further pertinent information on Discourse because you put a barrier up to it.

Either way you’ll have to moderate. So, why not keep the conversation on GitHub and moderate it there. If you have to lock the thread, someone can PM you here and you can post it on that thread.

(Jeff Atwood) #12

Because the github conversations are awful, you can’t even quote properly for a start. It is simply not discussion software.

Discourse for discussions: superiority to e.g. GitHub
(Robert Lee Louviere) #13


Even if, if you reference another ticket, or anything on GitHub, you’ll be crossing domains constantly.

Sure, you’ll be able to “quote properly”, but you’re splitting usage here.

I doubt this is going to go over well.

But, it’s obvious that you made up your mind already. I’ll try not to be a further distraction.

(Jeff Atwood) #14

You can see how we do it right here with Discourse. All our discussion is here, yet the code is on github. It isn’t some kind of magical impossibility to achieve.

(Robert Lee Louviere) #15

But, what if someone were “uncooperative”?

Wouldn’t it be easy to justify moderating them away?

Also, why not just start pushing a subculture on GitHub and convince them all that this is the right way to do it?

If it is superior, then you should be able to gain traction?

Ah… I’m doing it again.

Ok, agree to disagree.

You’ve definitely made Discourse better over time, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.


I feel the UI design is a little stark on the “official web site” (for anyone like me who has not read this thread, anyway) and does not help me trust this app.

  1. The very first page is asking me to link my github account. It doesn’t have a single piece of information about what this app does. It doesn’t explain who owns this app belongs to. The URL is “” to I’m guessing its either github or discourse. I’m guessing both companies are OK with this since their names appear in the URL. Maybe its a partnership of some kind. But I’d really like to know just who it is that’s offering this before I hand over my github account.

  2. OK, I’ll bite. Click to authorize. Now I see that I am authorizing an app called “Github-To-Discourse” by erlend-sh. And this wants access to my repositories? I genuinely am interested but there’s no way I’ll hand over my account just based on what I see here.

(Jeff Atwood) #17

Yeah we need more official-ness on this agree 100%. @erlend_sh when you are back can you take that.


Hosting at (say) a subdomain like would go a long way to engender trust.

(cpradio) #19

Can you explain this better? What more is needed than what exists already?

Here is what currently exists.

I do agree figuring out ownership is not obvious but I’d love to hear what other details could be added to tell you what it does. How would you alter that existing text?

(Jeff Atwood) #20

Also maybe you could style it to match, say, this basic layout a bit better?

(the logo does not need to be that huge… the error page is also a good place to look for that basic layout)

edit: the main thing is to move this under our domain cc @erlend_sh