GitLab Reviews

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 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.

The primary use of the solution is for LCDs and as a repository.

In GitLab, the most valuable feature is using information with a repository and using a containerized approach. You can use containers to create different jobs. 

The dashboard and interface make it easy to use.

GitLab doesn't have AWS integration. It would be better to have integration with other container management environments beyond Kubernetes. It has very good integration with Kubernetes, but it doesn't have good integration with, for example, AWS, ETS, etc.

The solution is stable. So far, we have not experienced any problems or bugs.

Coming from container architecture makes it very scalable. Every job you create will be created with its own container so it doesn't create laws on the existing running jobs on other containers. It expands itself by usage.

As the solution is open-source, there isn't any particular support subscription. There's a community, which is usually quite fast but it's not dedicated to any particular company. It's not certain that you will get the support you need by a certain time. You have to figure it out by yourself. It's quite easy to do so, however. If you have people on your team who have knowledge about containerized technologies, then it's actually not a problem.

We previously used Jenkins. Jenkins management is more complicated than GitLab. GitLab is easier to manage. Because of the simplicity of the product, GitLab is better than Jenkins.

The solution was very straightforward to implement.

Another team did the implementation, but if you use public cloud software, you don't need to deploy anything.

The solution is open-source.

We use the public cloud deployment model.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten.