GitLab Reviews

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.

GitLab can be deployed on-premise and in the cloud and it is used for DevOps.

The most valuable feature of GitLab is its security.

The price of GitLab could improve, it is high.

I have been using GitLab for approximately one year.

The stability of GitLab is good.

GitLab is scalable.

The support from GitLab is good.

The price of GitLab could be better, it is expensive.

I rate GitLab a seven out of ten.

I've used the solution just for my learning purposes. My company is using currently GitLab. We are using it for our CI/CD purposes for continuous integration and continuous deployment.

To my knowledge, my company started to use it as there were no decent alternatives to GitLab when they started to use it. The only decent alternative was GitHub, however, it was lacking in the CI/CD pipeline capabilities. At that time there were no GitHub actions available at the moment.

Of all available products, it was the easiest to use and easy to install.

The solution should be more cloud-native and have more cloud-native capabilities and features. It should be more GitOps-ready.

I started using the solution a year ago. My company has used it for four years.

I cannot speak to how stable the solution is. From what I have seen so far, there were no serious issues with GitLab.

Approximately four to five developers and maybe a couple of QA testers and a couple of DevOps engineers are responsible exclusively for GitLab maintenance and support.

Technical support has mostly been good.

Positive

I tried to learn a little bit about Jenkins, however, it was only through some internet content.

At the moment of the GitLab acquisition, I was not working for the company. I did not handle the implementation process.

We need at least a couple of technicians, engineers, for deployment and maintenance. 

Our own technical team handled the deployment. 

When I was hired (in 2020) they told me that they were using an open-source version. I'm not sure if that's still the case as it's a quite big company. Nowadays they should be using some kind of paid version, as the demand is pretty high, as far as I know.

I'm not sure of the exact licensing costs. 

We are customers and end-users.

As far as I know, we are using the on-premise version. There are two versions of GitLab - the on-premise and the cloud version. We are using on-premise. As far as I know, we also keep making sure it's up-to-date.

I'd rate the solution nine 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. 

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.

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.