GitLab Reviews

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. 

Because GitLab uses an education license for cloud, there is unlimited storage for each account, so it's very useful. It is very flexible and easy because you can store data on cloud.

GitLab should include more features because, during the pandemic, companies like Google introduced more features. The integration and storage capabilities could be better. This would be very handy for educators and students.

We used this solution at my previous company for a few years. They initially deployed it on-premises but fully migrated to cloud because all the data was not fully backed. We had around 500 clients and 500 accounts.

It is 100% stable.

I believe it's scalable. It is suitable, and there was no need for exploration.

We used a lot of technical support for standard settings.

It is subjective. I cannot compare GitLab with Azure because it is based on experience.

We had to read the manuals first before we could set up. The manuals are helpful for consultants as we needed their expertise to complete the setup. In addition, they can ensure there is no downtime.

It has a very good price and is good for general sidetracking.

I rate this solution a ten 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.

GitLab can be deployed on-premise and in the cloud.

GitLab is mainly used as a repository.

The most valuable feature of GitLab is the ability to upload scripts and make changes when needed and then reupload them. Additionally, the solution is user-friendly.

I have not explored the solution fully but the features that I have used have been good.

GitLab can improve the integration with third-party applications. It could be made easier. Additionally, having API control from my application could be helpful.

I have been using GitLab for approximately three years.

The stability of GitLab is good.

We have approximately 20 people in my department using GitLab and in my organization, we have approximately 4,000 people using it.

I have not used the support from GitLab.

The initial setup of GitLab is complex and could improve.

GitLab is an open-source solution.

I rate GitLab a nine out of ten.

The deployment and performance of GitLab could be better. In addition, the solution could be faster.

We have been using this solution for more than five years, and it is deployed on cloud.

GitLab is stable.

It is a scalable solution.

The installation was straightforward.

I rate this solution a seven out of ten, and it is good for a small set of people.