GitLab Reviews

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. 

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.

I primarily use GitLab for maintenance and deployment of projects.

GitLab's best features are maintenance, branch integration, and development infrastructure.

I've been using GitLab for two to three years.

GitLab's stability is almost always good, but it depends on your connection with the network. If the GitLab services are running properly, and your services and network are fine, then there shouldn't be any problem with stability. There are some wrinkles, but they're around 5-8% and are mostly contained.

Previously, I used Team Foundation Server (TFS).

The initial setup was quite challenging because it takes some time to understand how to pull out or push the code.

GitLab is a very good solution because you can completely maintain your code and have a number of developers working on the same project. I would recommend GitLab for those doing technology development, and I'd give it a rating of nine out of ten.

GitLab is being used as a repository for our codebase and it is a one stop DevOps tool we use in our team.

GitLab has repository and deployment features that are integrated into one solution. This is its most valuable feature.

It is a little complex to set up the pipelines within the solution.

We have been using this solution for two and a half years. 

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution. 

I have used several tools like Ansible for deployment and Nexus as a repository. We moved to GitLab because these features are integrated into one solution

The initial setup is quite complex. The time it takes to deploy the solution depends on the artifacts. We have several steps in our pipeline so it usually takes around four to five minutes for the pipeline to complete.

We are using the Community Edition and this is free.

It takes some time for the environment to become stable once you migrate from another solution.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

We use this solution for storing repositories for distributed programming. We have 15 to 20 users. We generally keep our POC repositories on GitLab.

As a developer, this solution is useful as a repository holder because most of the POC projects that we have are on GitLab. 

GitLab's Windows version is yet not available and having this would be an improvement. This is compared to Azure Git where Microsoft provides us with the setup of virtual agents which you can download and set up quickly. Your laptop will become an agent which is connected to your cloud environment to execute the job which is triggered from the cloud environment. 

I've been using GitLab as a developer for four to five years, but when it comes to practical implementation in my current organization, it's been about a year since we started shifting our repositories to this platform.

Absolutely, the solution is stable and satisfies our requirements. 

Due to the relatively small number of users in our organization, I can't really comment on the scalability of this solution. 

We have never needed to contact customer support. Whenever we had an issue, all the help we needed for a solution is on the platform or in the documentation.

We used to use TFS repositories on the older versions of Microsoft.

I have done a setup on-premise for GitLab and it was straightforward. The documentation is clean which is useful for the DevOps person who sets up the on-premise environment. Based on the documentation provided by GitLab, I have prepared my own documentation.

To complete the deployment, it took me two to three days including downloading the artifact from the internet, getting the Linux server ready and setting up GitLab runner for CI/CD. I was the only person involved in the setup and we have 15 to 20 total users across our organization, almost all of them developers. 

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

My daily usage involves fetching code, creating branches, modifying the code, and then committing my changes. Once I'm ready for a review with my colleagues, I create a merge request. Then, during a code review, they will use the interface to write comments. Once everything in the comments has been addressed, I complete the merge. This describes a typical scenario.

We develop under Linux.

Everybody needs a source code versioning assistant, and GitLab is very flexible in this regard. 

GitLab offers a good interface for doing code reviews between two colleagues.

The continuous integration feature is good.

We are having a few problems integrating with Jira at the moment, which is something that our IT department is investigating. In general, integrating with third-party tools is easy for some but difficult for others. When I create a new project, I go through all of the settings, and then I can integrate that with other tools. However, with Jira, I have problems.

If we could have GitLab execute some of the system tests then it would be good because as it is now, we have to rely on another tool. Ideally, it would execute a system test, a unit test, and then create a report. It is possible to do it but requires a lot of scripting expertise. 

It should be easily available on their menu, similar to adding tests, configuring the tests you want to execute when you launch a build, so the build would be done then tests would be performed, and the report would be created.

This would allow us to know what went wrong during our systems test. If this aspect was more integrated into their interface, instead of relying on developers to script everything, it would be easier.

I would like to see better integration with third-party software.

I have been using GitLab for a bit more than a year.

GitLab is pretty stable. I would rate it an eight out of ten.

I haven't really used it outside of our Linux development environment, so I cannot really tell.

GitLab is not responding quickly enough to our request. I know one of the problems that I am experiencing is with the integration with Jira.

We submitted the request to GitLab and we did not receive any replies. That was back in October.

Technical support could be better and their response time needs improvement to respond more quickly.

Since I am using the web-based version and accessing GitLab through the web, I didn't have to install Gitlab, so in that sense, there was no effort, obstacles, or challenges in the initial setup.

I needed to understand the menu.

When I create a new software project in GitLab, I need to go through all of the settings to configure everything, which was not a problem. I needed to understand all of the options, and what it was doing.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Overall, our team is happy with the solution.

The CI/CD pipeline management is the solution's most valuable aspect.

Everything is easy to configure and easy to work with. Our team finds it to be very user-friendly.

Generally, the volume control is very good.

I've looked at GitLab's roadmap. The only thing our company is really waiting on in terms of features is the development of metrics. We're looking forward to being able to take advantage of them.

We've been using the solution for two years at this point.

We've never had any issues with stability. We're very happy with the setup we have and it works well for our team. We haven't had any issues with the product crashing or freezing and I don't recall dealing with bugs or glitches.

The solution is very scalable. I'm not sure how many nodes we have currently, however, it is scalable. If we need the extra capacity, I know we can build it out and use different setups.

We have about 100 users in our company using the product.

We've never needed to contact GitLab for technical support. I can't speak to the level of service their in-house team might give.

We previously used SVN. We migrated everything over to GitLab.

Our platform engineering team found the initial implementation pretty straightforward.

Within the organization, deployment took about a week. That said, we had to spend three weeks migrating from SVN, which is what we were using before.

There isn't really any maintenance required. It's not something we think about or worry about, really.

We're just a customer. We don't have a professional relationship with GitLab.

We're using the latest version of the solution right now.

I would definitely recommend the solution to other organizations. It's pretty easy to use and can scale if you need to. It's stable as well. We're not really missing any features. It's great.

Overall, I'd rate GitLab nine out of ten. They can always improve, which is why I didn't give them a perfect score. What they are working on, based on their roadmap, is already quite impressive. We're looking forward to metrics coming down the pipeline later in the year.

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.