GitLab Reviews

The solution is cloud-based. There are around 30 people using this solution in my organization. 

GitLab is kind of an image of GitHub, so it gives us the flexibility to monitor our changes in the repos. Multiple people can work on the same code and make various branches. We can merge them together and resolve conflicts. This feature makes development quite fast. Everybody gets to work on their own feature independently without waiting for someone else to complete their code first.

When deploying the solution on cloud and the CI/CD pipeline, we have to define the steps and it becomes confusing. The trend is shifting toward CI/CD pipeline automation, so GitLab could provide some features that help with CI/CD automation. 

There could also be integration with different cloud services like GCP, AWS, or Microsoft Azure. A one-click deployment with the CI/CD pipeline of our code would be a good feature.

I worked with GitLab for one year.

The solution is stable. We haven't encountered any issues with loading repos.

It's scalable. We haven't performed a lot of computation on GitLab because we're just storing our code on it. We can create as many admins, branches, and projects as we want.

I haven't contacted technical support because we haven't encountered any issues. 

Initial setup is simple. Our model and other application repo was pushed on GitLab. From there, we pushed the code into the VM and then used that to make the Docker images. The models were deployed on GCP. It was easy to deploy them on Cloud Run on GCP.

The solution isn't as expensive as other solutions.

I would rate this solution as nine out of ten.

We use GitLab as a source code repository, terraform modules repository, generic packages repository and for our CI/CD pipelines.

The most valuable features of GitLab are the merge request approvals, package repository, and that GitLab CI/CD pipelines plans are written in YAML.

GitLab could improve the package repository. It does not have support for Conan packages revisions.

Additionally, better support for deploying GitLab in Kubernetes is needed (i.e. more mature helm packages and updated documentation).

I have been using GitLab for approximately five years.

The stability of GitLab is good.

GitLab is scalable. We only needed to add more resources to the VM. Horizontally, we were not able to scale it because we couldn't deploy it in Kubernetes correctly.

We have approximately 300 people using the solution in my organization.

I have not used the support from GitLab.

I previously used Gerrit and I prefer GitLab. It is much better in the interface and integration, it is much more than only Git software, it is more of a complete package.

The initial setup of GitLab is not complex. However, it can be difficult to deploy GitLab on Kubernetes.

The deployment of GitLab was done in-house.

The solution's standard license is paid annually. They have changed the pricing tiers and removed the bronze tier, which was the perfect sweet spot.
There is a free version available.

I rate the price of GitLab a seven out of 10.

I would recommend the solution to others. For a self-hosted version, I advise others to deploy it using Docker/Docker-compose, it is the easiest way. The solution has no maintenance. 

I rate GitLab a nine out of ten.

We use GitLab for all of our Git sources and it is mapped to our integrated solution for the complete ICG platform.

The most valuable features of GitLab are ease of use and highly intuitive UI and performance.

GitLab can improve by integrating with more tools, such as servers with Docker.

I have been using GitLab for approximately 11 years.

GitLab is a stable solution. We've never faced any issues.

Our current setup is with one server but GitLab overall can scale.

We have approximately 300 people using the solution. Most of the people are in the developers' teams, management, and tech leads that all log into GitLab.

GitLab can be used for enterprise-sized companies.

I have not used the support from GitLab.

I have previously used GitHub as a developer. GitLab looks similar to GitHub and it's helping the developer use it better.

We update the GitLab version annually for maintenance.

GitLab is a free solution to use.

I rate GitLab a ten out of ten.

We are using the product for configuration management and source course management. For some projects, we are using it issue management.

Configuration and source management are the most valuable aspects of the solution.

It offers an easy initial setup. 

The solution is stable.

I find the product scalable. 

It's not overly expensive. 

We'd always like to see better pricing on the product. If they could make the cost lower, that would be ideal for users. 

We've been using the solution for five or six years. 

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

It is scalable and easy to expand. 

We have about 100 users on the solution. That includes developers and testers. 

Our team is getting better. We'll likely need 30 more licenses. Therefore, we plan to expand usage.

We don't need technical support. Our IT team has handled all the issues and therefore we don't need any additional support.

We did previously use a different solution. I can't recall the name.

The solution is very straightforward to set up. It's not very complex at all. My understanding is it quite easy to implement. However, I was not completely involved. 

We pay a yearly licensing fee. The pricing is pretty low. It's not too expensive. 

We did not evaluate other solutions. We've always used GitLab.

I'm not sure which version of the solution I'm using. 

I'd rate this product nine out of ten.

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.

I'm part of the application development team comprising 10-12 developers and I have used GitLab for configuration and version management. We have also used it for DevOps, but I have not been involved in the DevOps side. My work with GitLab involved basic version management (i.e. checking in, checking out, merging) and related features. 

I have also used GitLab for doing remote builds, which is when you check in and it triggers the build on the application remotely. For example, we have a YAML script that has been written for performing builds on GitLab automatically and when that script gets executed, it performs the builds and copies them to the destination folder. All of this gets triggered from GitLab.

I like that you can use GitLab as a double-sided solution for both DevOps and version management. It's a good product for working in these two areas, and the user interface makes it easy to understand.

There was a problem with the build environment when we were looking at developing iOS applications. iOS build require Mac machines and there are no Mac machines provided by GitLab in their cloud. So to build for mobile iOS application, we needed to use our own Mac machine within our own infrastructure. If GitLab were to provide a feature such that an iOS application could also be built through GitLab directly, that would be great.

I have used GitLab for two months.

It's stable. 

Once all the scripts are written, it becomes scalable. When an application gets deployed and people start using it, it's on the cloud and so it becomes scalable. All the applications that we design are deliberately written in such a way as to be scalable.

We only used GitLab for a short duration, so there was not much scope or need for contacting technical support.

The setup is straightforward to an extent because the part of GitLab that I was using for version management was similar to other tools that I have used such as Git and SVN. When I use GitLab, it's more or less the same process and workflow as these other tools, so there wasn't a big learning curve for me.

Our application was an accumulation of multiple applications, so there were multiple builds happening at any given time. GitLab would process the builds and it would take only a couple of hours for us to deploy the builds on the cloud.

The other thing is that the GitLab user interface is good, so it's easy to understand. You, yourself, can learn it simply by exploring and trying it out. Then there's a lot of help that is available on the GitLab website on how to use it. 

For the implementation, we had a DevOps engineer who was the primary technical guy, and then the others were developers and related entities performing the development.

Personally, I can't say much about the return on investment because the licensing and costs and everything have been borne by our customer. We were just using it. But I think that the return on investment must be good, and it might be one of the reasons why the customer is using it for all their projects.

I'm not aware of the licensing costs because those were covered by the customer.

I can certainly recommend GitLab. It's a good product and I would rate it an eight out of ten.

I work in PMO, and I standardize the workflows for scrum teams, AI teams, and kanban teams. If I have some scripting in Jira, and I need to save it in GitLab.

It is our source-code repository. It's used for the BI process, continuous integration, and continuous development. It's used for DevOps people. All of our IT people use GitLab.

The source-code repository is great. 

I really like the pipelines.

The stability is good. 

We'd like to see better integration with the Atlassian ecosystem. There needs to be better and native integration. That is really useful for us as Atlassian Jira has strong integration with Bitbucket, and Bitbucket is a computation of GitLab.

We've used the solution for a long time. I've used this solution for one year at this company. However, I've used it for five or eight years. 

The solution is always working. I haven't experienced problems with GitLab.

My company is 100 people, however, my instance of IT people has 10,000 people in Jira. I work with a lot of developers.

I've never used technical support. I can't speak to how helpful they are. 

We changed Bitbucket for GitLab.

I'm not the main of GitLab. I did not initially set up the product.

We've likely seen an ROI. 

I don't deal with any licensing aspects of the solution. I can't speak about the exact costs. 

We are customers and end-users. 

I'd rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

Overall, we've been very satisfied with the solution.

Our partner is very helpful if we need technical support. 

We like that we can have an all-encompassing product and don't have to implement different solutions.

The solution can scale. 

We would like to generate document pages from the sources. Right now, we can't do that.

The testing could be better in that, for the code quality, now we use an external product and maybe the internal product could be more efficient.

We have been working with GitLab for two years on a simple installation. Now, we have upgraded it and we might go to the enterprise solution.

The solution is scalable. If you want to, you can move over to the enterprise version of the solution.

We get our technical support via a partner and we have found them to be very helpful and responsive. We are happy with them. They work fine.

Previously, we used Jenkins and GitLab without the pipeline and the Runner.

We have a partner that assisted in implementing the process for us.

Our partner had assisted us in the initial setup process. 

It's not part of my duties to cover licensing and pricing. I can't speak to any details in relation to the costs. 

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been very happy with the product.

We're a customer and an end-user.