GitLab Reviews

During the development environment, we have a different number of developers, close to five. So each of them will have a different project. Maybe some of them do it in one project, but their assignment or the activity they are doing may be different, so they will do their activity and then they will push it to the GitLab. If there is an amendment or update required, they will pull it from GitLab and if they do their activity again, they will push it. 

GitLab also does the merging . The merging feature makes it easy later on for the deployment.

I would like to see security increased in the future. A secure environment is very important.

I have been using GitLab for the past seven years.

The cloud provides good stability for GitLab.

GitLab is scalable. I think they have their own actually premium services. So, there are some functionalities and features that may be added on top of the free version.

The initial setup of GitLab is easy and straightforward. You do not need to be a deployment expert. It can be done by the managers or directors. 

GitLab can be done in-house but we are using CloudWatch. All you need is to have a free account.

The initial setup cost is excellent and you can add the premium features later.

Using GitLab is important to help provide a more secure and reliable environment for developers working with information in the cloud. GitLab brings a level of safety. I would rate GitLab a ten out of ten.

GitLab's best features are continuous integration and fast deployment.

GitLab's UI could be improved. In the next version, the documentation of the migrations steps should be better.

I've been working with GitLab for six years.

GitLab is very stable.

GitLab is scalable.

GitLab's technical support is quick and responsive.

Positive

The initial setup is pretty simple for GitLab as a service, but it's more complex for a hosted solution.

GitLab is comparatively expensive, but it provides value because it's feature-rich. I would rate its pricing four out of five.

I would rate GitLab nine out of ten.

We use it for version control and CI/CD.

CI/CD is very good. The version control system is also good. These are the two features that we use.

Its security features are very expensive. The Ultimate version is very expensive.

I would like more Agile features in the Premium version. The Premium version should have all Agile features that exist in the Ultimate version. IBM AOM has a complete Agile implementation, but in GitLab, you only have these features if you buy the Ultimate version. It would be good if we can use these in the Premium version.

I have been using GitLab for five years.

It is very stable. In five years, we had to fix it only once.

It is very scalable. We have about 2,000 users, but as per the reference architecture documentation, it can be scaled up to 50,000 users.

We are using the open-source free version. So, we don't have support. We are looking to buy the intermediate version or Premium version. 

It was very easy to set up. 

We set it up by ourselves. We also update it, and we don't have to turn it off.

We are using its free version, and we are evaluating its Premium version. Its Ultimate version is very expensive.

We are evaluating its Premium version, and we are also evaluating other products like GitHub.

I would rate it a nine out of 10.

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.

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 primarily use this solution for end-to-end CI/CD solutioning and deployment as well as infrastructure, architect and environmental management. In addition, we plan to use it for version control and SaaS solutioning and have heard it is great.

The SaaS setup is impressive, and it has DAST solutioning. It also has dependency check and scanning mechanisms. If we were using other solutions, they would have to be configured, and we would have to set them us as a third party, but GitLab is straightforward. GitLab is a single solution that helps us do everything we need.

The documentation in GitLab could be improved a bit. For example, their RBAC is role-based access, which is fine but not very good. It could also be improved a lot.

We have been using this solution for almost seven years. We are currently using version 15.2.1. We are using GitLab Cloud, and it is a public setup.

It is a stable solution, and we have not experienced any challenges.

It is scalable, but we need to pay extra costs.

The technical support is good, but it is available with paid solutions only. So we have to rely on their documentation or wait for community updates for the free tier or vendor solution.

It is a cloud solution, so we didn't have to do much. We just needed to create an account, and the solution was ready. It is gitlab.com.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten because it is a good tool.

The primary use of the solution is for LCDs and as a repository.

In GitLab, the most valuable feature is using information with a repository and using a containerized approach. You can use containers to create different jobs. 

The dashboard and interface make it easy to use.

GitLab doesn't have AWS integration. It would be better to have integration with other container management environments beyond Kubernetes. It has very good integration with Kubernetes, but it doesn't have good integration with, for example, AWS, ETS, etc.

The solution is stable. So far, we have not experienced any problems or bugs.

Coming from container architecture makes it very scalable. Every job you create will be created with its own container so it doesn't create laws on the existing running jobs on other containers. It expands itself by usage.

As the solution is open-source, there isn't any particular support subscription. There's a community, which is usually quite fast but it's not dedicated to any particular company. It's not certain that you will get the support you need by a certain time. You have to figure it out by yourself. It's quite easy to do so, however. If you have people on your team who have knowledge about containerized technologies, then it's actually not a problem.

We previously used Jenkins. Jenkins management is more complicated than GitLab. GitLab is easier to manage. Because of the simplicity of the product, GitLab is better than Jenkins.

The solution was very straightforward to implement.

Another team did the implementation, but if you use public cloud software, you don't need to deploy anything.

The solution is open-source.

We use the public cloud deployment model.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten.

My team primarily uses GitLab for CI/CD purposes. Whatever code I develop has to go with the team, so I work in a team that tries to write its version of the code, or uses the ticketing system, takes a ticket, covers that information, and then updates the main branch about it. That's the use case my team has for GitLab.

We're only using the basic features of GitLab and haven't used any advanced features. The solution works fine, so that's what we like about GitLab. We're party using GitHub and GitLab. We have a GitHub server, while we use GitLab locally or only within our team, and it works okay. We don't have any significant problems with the solution.

We also found the straightforward setup, stability, and scalability of GitLab valuable.

I've noticed an area for improvement in GitLab, particularly needing to go through many steps to push the code to the repository. Resolving that issue would make the product better.

My team quickly fixed it by writing a small script, then double-clicking or enabling the script to take care of the issue. However, that quick fix was from my team and not the GitLab team, so in the next release, if an automatic deployment feature would be available in GitLab, then that would be good because, in Visual Studio, you can do that with just one click of a button.

I've been using GitLab for almost four years.

As of now, we don't have any issues with GitLab stability-wise. We never faced any critical issues, so everything's going smoothly.

GitLab is a scalable solution.

We didn't use the technical support for GitLab because there are specific people within our organization that we can contact about issues, for example, access issues or permissions, and they give us access to the folders.

We haven't used any other build automation product other than GitLab.

We found the initial setup for GitLab very straightforward. We're developers, so we develop the code, then push that code to our branch. We have a moderator who keeps track of the testing process, so from our side, we already have the steps and what needs to be done and written, so we follow those steps to set up GitLab.

The implementation of GitLab was done in-house within my company.

As I work in a vast enterprise, I'm unsure about the licensing cost for GitLab. It's the management team that takes care of that.

I'm a developer, so I write all the code from scratch, but I don't use predefined platforms. I've been using GitLab and Visual Studio, though.

As GitLab is only used within my team, only five people use it.

My team uses GitLab almost every day, then when a project is complete, my team pushes it back into GitHub.

My team is an end-user of GitLab.

Regarding recommending GitLab to others, I'm a developer of data science solutions, so I mostly do end-user tasks rather than developer tasks. As of now, nothing was so bad about GitLab, and I didn't come across any significant hardships in using the solution. For a person like me who uses resources in a bigger enterprise, there shouldn't be problems using GitLab. If you're part of a small company, there could be some issues.

My rating for GitLab is seven out of ten.