GitLab Reviews

We have a normal use case to build source code and our agenda and then try to deploy it. The deployment is not specifically automated, it is semi-automated. So it is normal. We create an artifact, try to build it, and then deploy it onto the application server. It's not fully automated. 

At this point, I think the features are declining. 

We like that we can create branches and then the branches can be reviewed and you can mesh those branches back. You can independently work with your own branch, you don't need to really control the core of other people. 

There could be more features in GitLab, but we are as of now not using the full-fledged feature set. 

Another good feature is the code review, which also helps us with peer review. It helps in giving part of the code and giving back whatever the branch that the developer is working on. It can then be merged once it is thoroughly reviewed. Those are certain things that I think are helpful from a developer's point of view. It provides or mandates quantitative code into the master.

We do reviews as I also work with some of the leadership teams. Leadership teams generally focus on statistics, metrics, or some sort of dashboard. They would like to have the ability to categorize these things. They would like to have a very high-level view. That would help. Someone who is not really a developer, but a leadership team. They are always interested in statistics or metrics features. That is something I would see imbedded into GitLab. That would help someone who is from the outside take a view and understand how qualitative the code is, because they cannot definitely dive in and look at the code, and they will not be able to understand all the details. At a high level, if they want to see and understand, at least they will have some confidence about how the projects are going on.

I have been using GitLab for two years. 

The stability is good. I never had any issues. Stability-wise, I'm comfortable with it. 

Scalability-wise it is very scalable as well. Based on the code volume, there is a scope for improvement. I never had issues with scalability.

Technical support depends on licensing. We haven't reached out that frequently because it is stable and we don't see any issues. I don't recall anything that we had any particular challenge that we had to reach out immediately to GitLab and then get the answer quicker at any point in time.

I wasn't here for the deployment but the deployment takes around 10 minutes. 

Only a few aspects will take close to five minutes. 

I would rate GitLab an eight out of ten. 

GitLab provides some sort of static analysis part. That is what I understand, but I never tried it. I would like to see static analysis also embedded in GitLab. That would also help us. If there's something that it does internally by GitLab and then that is already tied up with your pipeline and then it can tell you that you're coding is good or your code is not great. Based on that, it would pass or fail. That should be streamlined. I would think that would help to a greater extent, in terms of having one solution rather than depending on multiple vendors.

My daily usage involves fetching code, creating branches, modifying the code, and then committing my changes. Once I'm ready for a review with my colleagues, I create a merge request. Then, during a code review, they will use the interface to write comments. Once everything in the comments has been addressed, I complete the merge. This describes a typical scenario.

We develop under Linux.

Everybody needs a source code versioning assistant, and GitLab is very flexible in this regard. 

GitLab offers a good interface for doing code reviews between two colleagues.

The continuous integration feature is good.

We are having a few problems integrating with Jira at the moment, which is something that our IT department is investigating. In general, integrating with third-party tools is easy for some but difficult for others. When I create a new project, I go through all of the settings, and then I can integrate that with other tools. However, with Jira, I have problems.

If we could have GitLab execute some of the system tests then it would be good because as it is now, we have to rely on another tool. Ideally, it would execute a system test, a unit test, and then create a report. It is possible to do it but requires a lot of scripting expertise. 

It should be easily available on their menu, similar to adding tests, configuring the tests you want to execute when you launch a build, so the build would be done then tests would be performed, and the report would be created.

This would allow us to know what went wrong during our systems test. If this aspect was more integrated into their interface, instead of relying on developers to script everything, it would be easier.

I would like to see better integration with third-party software.

I have been using GitLab for a bit more than a year.

GitLab is pretty stable. I would rate it an eight out of ten.

I haven't really used it outside of our Linux development environment, so I cannot really tell.

GitLab is not responding quickly enough to our request. I know one of the problems that I am experiencing is with the integration with Jira.

We submitted the request to GitLab and we did not receive any replies. That was back in October.

Technical support could be better and their response time needs improvement to respond more quickly.

Since I am using the web-based version and accessing GitLab through the web, I didn't have to install Gitlab, so in that sense, there was no effort, obstacles, or challenges in the initial setup.

I needed to understand the menu.

When I create a new software project in GitLab, I need to go through all of the settings to configure everything, which was not a problem. I needed to understand all of the options, and what it was doing.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We are a startup company working on a new firewall product, and we use GitLab as part of the software development process.

I see this product as an investment. It speeds up our development, it's faster, safer, and more convenient. We know that all of your information is going to be in the same place and you can do what you want.

The most valuable feature of GitLab is the level of control that it offers. I have more control over everything.

I would like to see better integration with project management tools such as Jira. I know that integration does exist for some, but it can be better. In the future, I would like to be able to add what I want.

I have been using GitLab for one year.

This product is fully stable.

We have not used GitLab technical support because as of now, we haven't needed it yet.

Prior to using GitLab, I was using GitHub.

The initial setup is not complicated. Especially if you have used GitHub before, it is pretty easy. Being on the cloud, you don't have to buy a server or anything else. You pay for it, set it up, and all of the protection and other services are included.

GitLab can be used free of charge but if you use it for years and move to a paid license then it is better because you have more services. I think that we pay approximately $100 USD per month.

We strive to always have the latest technology. In this business, you have to follow your client and follow the trend. In fact, you have to do things ahead of the trend and be prepared. For us, this tool is really convenient.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to consider the paid version. Don't be afraid to pay a few dollars a year. Especially for a startup company, this tool is an investment. You don't have to look at it as an expenditure or expense. Don't think about it as spending money, but rather, investing money.

From my point of view and for what I use GitLab for, it is okay for me. There may be other products, but this is a great tool. It's convenient and it's used by a million developers. The developers here consider it to be the best choice. That said, there is always room for improvement in a product.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We are using it for pipelines, continuous integration, and continuous deployment. 

In terms of deployment, it can be a cloud solution, but we have installed it on our site on Azure.

GitLab is very useful for pipelines, continuous integration, and continuous deployment. It is also stable.

Its price should be improved. It is very expensive.

Based on what I know so far, its integration with Kubernetes is not so good. We have to develop many things to make it work. We have to acquire third-party components to work with Kubernetes. 

From the DevOps perspective, the way we deploy applications is too complicated. It needs to be simplified. It is very development-oriented, and it works very well for DevOps, but when you are at the group level, you want it to be simple and more oriented towards the process. The automation process to deploy is not a very good part of GitLab.

I have been using this solution for three or four years.

It is stable.

Its scalability is fine. We have 200 developers in our organization. 

We have been doing okay on our own. We are able to find support inside our company.

Its initial setup is okay. We did the installation in three months, but it was very slow and complicated to develop the continuous deployment during these three years for each application. We had to develop pipelines for multiple development languages.

We are quite well organized now, but it took a long time to think about which pipeline to use with GitLab. We now have five pipelines. We have the infrastructure pipeline, the middleware pipeline, the image pipeline, the security pipeline, and the application pipeline.

We have a team of 10 people for its deployment. They are admins and managers.

It is very expensive. We can't bear it now, and we have to find another solution.

We have a yearly subscription in which we can increase the number of licenses, but we have to pay at the end of the year. 

We are using the Azure Cloud solution, and we are thinking of trying the Azure DevOps solution this year. 

I would recommend this solution to others. The product is fine, but you have to do the integration with different pipelines.

I would rate GitLab a seven out of 10.

Overall, our team is happy with the solution.

The CI/CD pipeline management is the solution's most valuable aspect.

Everything is easy to configure and easy to work with. Our team finds it to be very user-friendly.

Generally, the volume control is very good.

I've looked at GitLab's roadmap. The only thing our company is really waiting on in terms of features is the development of metrics. We're looking forward to being able to take advantage of them.

We've been using the solution for two years at this point.

We've never had any issues with stability. We're very happy with the setup we have and it works well for our team. We haven't had any issues with the product crashing or freezing and I don't recall dealing with bugs or glitches.

The solution is very scalable. I'm not sure how many nodes we have currently, however, it is scalable. If we need the extra capacity, I know we can build it out and use different setups.

We have about 100 users in our company using the product.

We've never needed to contact GitLab for technical support. I can't speak to the level of service their in-house team might give.

We previously used SVN. We migrated everything over to GitLab.

Our platform engineering team found the initial implementation pretty straightforward.

Within the organization, deployment took about a week. That said, we had to spend three weeks migrating from SVN, which is what we were using before.

There isn't really any maintenance required. It's not something we think about or worry about, really.

We're just a customer. We don't have a professional relationship with GitLab.

We're using the latest version of the solution right now.

I would definitely recommend the solution to other organizations. It's pretty easy to use and can scale if you need to. It's stable as well. We're not really missing any features. It's great.

Overall, I'd rate GitLab nine out of ten. They can always improve, which is why I didn't give them a perfect score. What they are working on, based on their roadmap, is already quite impressive. We're looking forward to metrics coming down the pipeline later in the year.

We are using it for building mobile applications and web applications. I am supporting the code in GitLab. It is only for giving access to my development team, and I just see what merge requests are coming.

I like GitLab from the CI/CD perspective. It is much easier to set up CI/CD and then integrate with other tools.

In the free version, when a merge request is raised, there is no way to enforce certain rules. We can't enforce that this merge request must be reviewed or approved by two or three people in the team before it is pushed to the master branch. That's why we are exploring using some agents.

I have been using this solution for more than six months.

It seems stable.

I didn't find any scalability issues so far. We have around 50 members who use this solution. Around 20 of them use it on a daily basis.

One of my colleagues got in touch with them, and his response was that their technical support was not that great. The details that they provided for the question were not that great.

We also use GitHub. Earlier GitLab was more favored, but now GitHub has everything that is there in GitLab. If GitHub is offering more, then there might be chances of switching to that. I am not attached to either of these solutions. If things are working better for me in GitHub, I will move to GitHub.

It is simple. You just create one repo and then give access. It takes maybe 5 to 10 minutes.

Its price is fine. It is on the cheaper side and not expensive. You have to pay additionally for GitLab CI/CD minutes.

Initially, we used the free version. When we ran out of GitLab minutes, we migrated to the paid version.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate GitLab an eight out of ten.

We are providing solutions for consumer electronics. We have a repository of our code between the device team, mobile applications team, and cloud team.

It is very useful for code reviews and merging operations. Review analytics is available to users with reporter access and displays a table of open merge requests. Many merge requests can be added to the train. Each merge request runs its own merged results pipeline, which includes the changes from all of the other merge requests. If the pipeline for a merge request fails, the breaking changes are not merged, and the target branch is unaffected. It is very useful for merging our code and tracking another branch before giving release. Its interface is straightforward to see all process.

It can be free for commercial use of project management and code integrity features.

I have been using git solutions for almost two years. We are new for GitLab.

It is stable.

We are a small team. Almost 60 people are working on the same repo. It works for us currently, and we don't need to scale it.

For any technical issues, we have our infrastructure team. They have some experience with this product. Currently, we don't create any tickets for technical operations.

We were using Subversion. GitLab is a little bit more complex than Subversion, but it is okay for me.

It is easy.

We have an IT department for infrastructure operations, and they are managing this solution for us.

It seems reasonable. Our IT team manages the licenses.

I would advise others to follow best practices because they are useful for each case. If you have a problem, it can be easily solved by other people if you follow the best practices.

I would rate GitLab a nine out of ten.

We use this solution for source code management, and also team collaboration for the application lifecycle.

It has improved the way our organization functions.

It is very easy to use.

This product is always evolving, and they listen to the customers.

It solves what the customers what.

It would be really good if they integrated more features in application security.

I would also like to see scanning for some vulnerabilities and allow people to have a one-stop glance at the state of the security application

I have been working with GitLab for more than five years.

We are always using the latest version.

It's stable, and we have not experienced any issues with bugs or glitches.

It's a scalable solution. It's easy to scale.

We have used many solutions before GitLab.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The price is okay.

My advice is to work on the processes that are in the environment. Know what you need to do and what you need to deliver the software. You have to ask the question: What do you need to deploy the software?

Always take security into account from the beginning.

While this is a good tool that is always evolving and there are new updated security standards that are being published and improved upon, it is always a good idea to have another solution to compare with to get better at using it. You can always have a combination of all of them, which would something that I would be interested in.

We are always evaluating to see if there is a solution that can do the job better.

You need to have a well-defined set of processes and that will help them adapt GitLab.

Overall, it's a great product and it does a good job.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.