GitLab Reviews

We use this solution for storing repositories for distributed programming. We have 15 to 20 users. We generally keep our POC repositories on GitLab.

As a developer, this solution is useful as a repository holder because most of the POC projects that we have are on GitLab. 

GitLab's Windows version is yet not available and having this would be an improvement. This is compared to Azure Git where Microsoft provides us with the setup of virtual agents which you can download and set up quickly. Your laptop will become an agent which is connected to your cloud environment to execute the job which is triggered from the cloud environment. 

I've been using GitLab as a developer for four to five years, but when it comes to practical implementation in my current organization, it's been about a year since we started shifting our repositories to this platform.

Absolutely, the solution is stable and satisfies our requirements. 

Due to the relatively small number of users in our organization, I can't really comment on the scalability of this solution. 

We have never needed to contact customer support. Whenever we had an issue, all the help we needed for a solution is on the platform or in the documentation.

We used to use TFS repositories on the older versions of Microsoft.

I have done a setup on-premise for GitLab and it was straightforward. The documentation is clean which is useful for the DevOps person who sets up the on-premise environment. Based on the documentation provided by GitLab, I have prepared my own documentation.

To complete the deployment, it took me two to three days including downloading the artifact from the internet, getting the Linux server ready and setting up GitLab runner for CI/CD. I was the only person involved in the setup and we have 15 to 20 total users across our organization, almost all of them developers. 

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

We were working on our pipeline infrastructure running GitLab and we needed some scripts, such as Terraform, to complete some operations.

I have found the solution has good performance.

The solution could improve by having better integration.

I have been using GitLab for a couple of weeks.

The solution is stable.

The stability of the solution has been good.

I was satisfied with the support.

There is a license required for this solution.

I have evaluated Slack.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate GitLab a seven out of ten.

We use GitLab for the continuous deployment of CI/CD pipelines that are running on various GitLab services. We also use it to run nightly jobs and to run any other case-specific issues.

I like that it's easy to deploy our services over GitLab. The customer support is also good with a really active community. You have a lot of support that you can get online with your stack. That is probably one of the benefits of using GitLab. It's also really fast.

It would be better if there weren't any outages. There are occasions where we usually see a lot of outages using GitLab. It happens at least once a week or something like that. 

Whatever pipelines you're running, to check the logs, you need to have a different set of tools like Argus or something like that. If you have pipelines running on GitLab, you need a separate service deployed to view the logs, which is kind of a pain.

If the logs can be used conveniently on GitLab, that would be definitely helpful. I'm not talking about the CI/CD pipelines but the back-end services and microservices deployed over GitLab. To view the logs for those microservices, you need to have separate log viewers, which is kind of a pain. 

I have been using GitLab for over a year.

GitLab is a fairly stable solution. On a scale from one to ten, I would give it a seven for stability.

GitLab is scalable. You can replicate services, architecture, and more.

Technical support is good.

I would recommend this solution.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give GitLab an eight. 

We are a consultancy company, and we mostly sell application tools such as Jira and Bitbucket, but sometimes, our clients have Gitlab or Github, and then we offer the consultancy experience in DevOps for improving the process.

All use cases for this solution are for the financial industry. Around 50% of our clients are financial services.

The most valuable features of Gitlab are integration with CIE and the ability to rapidly deploy solutions, projects, and applications. It is very easy to use, and there are no complaints.

It could have more security integrations and the ability to check the vulnerability of the code. I don't think it is a responsibility of Gitlab, but it would be nice to have more options to integrate with.

I have been using this solution for about two or three years.

Its stability is good.

Its scalability is good. Our clients are medium to large businesses.

I have never used Gitlab's support.

Sometimes, clients migrate from Gitlab to Bitbucket. Sometimes, they migrate from Bitbucket to Gitlab. The most important feature that they are looking for is more integration with other tools, and they find Bitbucket a better solution for that.

It is straightforward.

For deployment and maintenance, usually, most of our clients have one person who is a DevOps engineer or CCM Administrator. We contact them so that we can assist them.

The most evaluated option is Bitbucket. 

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

We used the solution for keeping Yama code files there for our project.

The solution could improve by providing more integration into the CI/CD pipeline, an autocomplete search tool, and more supporting documentation.

I have been using the solution for six months.

I have had no problem with the stability of the solution.

The solution is able to be scaled. We have been doing our own project and there has been no issue with scalability.

The installation can be difficult. You need to get used to the markdown files, the tutorials that are offered are not the best. I had to search the internet for alternatives tutorials. There should be clear instructions on how to create markdown files and how to upload code. There is a lot of room for improvement in the area of supporting documentation.

I would advise those wanting to implement this solution to create tutorials themselves because there are so many sources that you have to look at just to understand how to make a red blob or red marker onto the code.

I rate GitLab a seven 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.

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 using GitLab for managing our code. We have created branches and posted code, and as our team members complete assignments, the code is pushed to there.

The best thing is that as the developers work on separate tasks, all of the code goes there and the other team members don't have to wait on each other to finish. We can all work on our code in tandem.

The documentation could be improved to help newcomers better understand things like creating new branches. 

The company has been using GitLab for a year and a half, and I have been using it for between eight and nine months.

GitLab is a stable solution.

It is easy to scale with GitLab. We can do work on virtual machines, pushing the code there and working with it.

I have not had contact with technical support. Rather, I relied on the other developers for assistance.

We previously used BitBucket, but we have transferred everything to GitLab. Everything that BitBucket can do is available in GitLab.

In summary, this is a very good product and everything is working well. I would recommend it.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.