GitLab Reviews

GitLab is used for pipeline development, automation, and deployment.

It is easy to manage.

GitLab integrates well with other platforms.

The automation is good.

While I don't have any specific complaints about GitLab, there are always things that could be better.

Better support, for example, could be provided. The technology could be made simpler to use, it should not be overly complex.

It should be used by a larger number of people. They should raise awareness.

I have been working with GitLab for three years.

GitLab has a good level of stability. I haven't had many problems.

GitLab is used by between 500 and 600 people.

Support is good.

I have used a variety of tools, including Ansible, Terraform, Bitbucket, and Bamboo.

I don't mind the price because I use the free version.

The licensing fee could be less expensive.

I would recommend this solution to anyone who is interested in using it.

GitLab is very good. I would rate GitLab a nine 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. 

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 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 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.

We use Gitlab for CICD work. 

Git hosting has an integration with ACD which is why we liked this solution in the first place.

This solution could be improved by adding modifications such as slack notifications.

I have been using this solution for four years.

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution although the CICD may be tricky to scale. 

I have previously used Bit Bucket and Github. Bit Bucket has some issues in our country. At the time we had banning issues within our government and only GitLab was. Bit Bucket is too slow and we had to wait for five minutes just to enter the platform. 

Bit Bucket pipelines are not that easy to consider and it was harder to use than GitLab. Gitlab is also more customizable. GitHub is more expensive than GitLab and didn't offer CICD. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten. 

Our company uses the solution to manage code, Wiki, and repository management for multiple projects on Truck It In. The solution helps us manage our experience with projects. We currently have twenty-two developers using the solution.  

We are in the process of executing the pipelines to use the solution for CI/CD. 

The interface is much more user friendly than competitor products. 

The merge request tool is very valuable. 

It is easy to perform code and peer reviews. 

Key features allow creation of well-presented Wiki that includes ideas, development, and domains. 

The solution should expand features to match other tools such as Coverity, Veracode, or SonarQube with its static code analysis tool so third-party integrations are not required.

There can be a lapse of fifteen minutes to a day when updates are pushed. We do receive email notification of upcoming lapses and push progress, so that helps.

I have been using the solution for eight months. 

The solution is stable with no failures or issues in the version controlling or epic creation processes. 

The solution is scalable. We can manage issues or epics, make Kanban with proper backlog, and move any processes with no problems. It is scalable in terms of managing our experience and using it as a project management tool. 

We have not needed technical support. 

The setup is straightforward with good user interface. Third-party integrations can be a bit of a hassle. 

We implemented the solution in-house. 

We use Spring Boot at the back end with IntelliJ for IDs. IntelliJ is a good tool that integrates our projects with the solution through a well-managed synchronization process. 

The solution has a better user interface than GitHub and Bitbucket. 

We also use ClickUp which is a great tool for managing tickets and stream planning. We follow Agile methodologies so ClickUp is quite helpful to us. 

SonarQube has a new integration with the solution so we use its static code analysis tool.

The solution is valuable for developers because it includes version controlling, pipelines, CI/CD, and integrations. When moving from the development side to the production side it is important to ensure that code is bug-free with no errors. We have less issues on the production side because we take full advantage of the solution. 

The solution currently requires third-party integrations for CI/CD so I rate it a seven out of ten.