GitLab Reviews

We use the solution for on-premises repository management

CI/CD is valuable for me. The product also has a monitoring feature connected to Grafana. It helps with alerts. We are using the free GitLab Community Edition. It has a lot of great features.

The documentation is confusing. Sometimes, it is incomplete or has incorrect information. I have informed the vendor about it. Some features in the GitLab Community Edition are not available to us.

I have been using the solution for nine months. My organization has been using it for around two years. We are using the latest version of the solution.

I rate the tool’s stability a ten out of ten. We never faced any downtime.

I rate the scalability of GitLab Community Edition a seven or eight out of ten. The product could improve the scalability of GitLab Community Edition. Around 60 people are using the product in our organization.

Their support is good. 

The initial setup is easier for someone who knows Linux and has been working as a system administrator. We need to have experience to deploy the solution. It takes around three to four hours to deploy the solution.

We are using the open-source version, anyone can download it.

I am my company’s GitLab administrator. Many features we need are available in Enterprise Edition. If we say that we do not have enough features in GitLab Community Edition, GitLab might just ask us to upgrade to Enterprise Edition. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

I use GitLab for some of my CyberArk scripting work.

GitLab's scoop is like a lifesaver. It's very crucial for us in our company to use some of those scripts from GitLab, either for health checks or building new connectors is very important for us, and at times, with GitLab, you don't even need to build the connectors.

Some of the scripts that we encountered in GitLab were not fully functional and threw up errors. The aforementioned area of the solution needs improvement.

In the future, I would like to see GitLab providing more oversight over the coding part.

I have been using GitLab for a couple of years. I use the solution's latest version.

It is a stable solution and seems to be a well-tested product with no issues. I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. There are a lot of users on GitLab, so it is a highly scalable product. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

GitLab has only two users, including myself, in our company.

We don't have plans in our company to increase the number of users in future.

The solution's technical support is pretty good. If you go on Stack Overflow platform, you can find technical support there. The product's technical team is knowledgeable, responds quickly, and is customer friendly.

I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup of GitLab is pretty simple, with no complications.

The deployment process took less than an hour, which means it can be done in around 45 minutes.

The solution can be deployed on the cloud or on-premises version by installing the EXE file.

Only one junior engineer is required for deployment and maintenance.

The deployment phase can be done by yourself, in-house.

The ROI has been good since we have had no issues so far.

My company uses the free version of GitLab, which is GitLab Community Edition. There is a licensed version also available for GitLab.

I would tell those planning to use the solution to try developing their own scripts in GitLab and then try to download them from the repository there. You build your knowledge while helping others as well.

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.

GitLab is a solution for source code management, container registry, pipelines, testing, and deployment.

The problem with Git is that it's a solution for managing your source code history. But with Git, you can edit the history, which is not ideal.

Another issue is the pricing model of GitLab. 

I have been using GitLab for more than a year. I am using the latest version. 

It is a stable solution. I would rate it a ten out of ten. 

It is a scalable solution. I would scalability rate it a ten out of ten. 

I used GitHub. GitHub did not have a container registry or testing, and it is owned by Microsoft, which raises concerns about ethics. All my decisions are based on ethics. 

The initial setup is reasonably okay. Moreover, it's already in the cloud, so I didn't need to deploy it. 

There is no deployment or maintenance staff required. 

The pricing is a bit high. I'm still on the free plan, but if I wanted to buy it, the pricing would be a bit high. There are not any additional costs associated with the standard license.

GitLab is a good solution. Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten. I would say it's better than GitHub.

There are two primary functions. The first function is a Git-compliant source code repository, and the second function is a full-fledged CI/CD platform.

The CI/CD functionality as a whole is pretty helpful and nice to have. Their CI/CD engine is very mature. It's very comprehensive and flexible, and compared to other projects, I believe that GitLab is number one right now from that perspective.

They have had a Kubernetes integration built in, but they recently announced that in Version 16 they're going to strip out the legacy Kubernetes integration, and then introduce a new way of doing the integration. I don't really like the new way because it is pretty focused on the on-premise environment, but we're in a hybrid environment. The integration they're offering is not really a good fit for hybrid infrastructure and I was disappointed with that new feature. 

I work for a government-based institution in the US and government-based institutions are very strict about compliance and security. The new model GitLab is offering implies the connectivity will be initiated from the server side to the clients, meaning from Kubernetes back to GitLab, and that's not going to work in our space. We cannot allow traffic back from the cloud to on-prem, so that's going to be a compliance violation. I understand why they want to implement the feature, maybe it's going to be more solid, but it looks like they aren't taking into consideration hybrid environments and the security and compliance aspects. We will find a workaround, but we're still kind of disappointed. It'll generate a lot of additional work.

One feature that has been requested by our development team is a multi-level review of the pool request. When you maintain code and you've got a lot of contributors, a contributor can submit a change in the form of a pool request. There is a feature called merge request in GitLab for when you have a team of people who are supposed to approve a change, but Atlassian BitBucket has a more complete version of the same feature, which includes a multi-approval mechanism. For instance, if you have three people, you can create a rule for how changes should be approved. Maybe they should be approved by you and me and the third guy is not really important, or it could be approved by only you or me, or all three of us together. BitBucket has that flexibility and there is no such flexibility in GitLab.

I've been using GitLab for approximately four years. 

Overall, it's pretty stable. 

Scalability is not directly a feature of GitLab because GitLab is about storing your source code. Your storage can be organized in a way that makes it very scalable. For instance, we use the NetApp Store and we are not limited at all, so whenever we hit a disk space problem, we can simply extend the storage and give it more IOPs. However, the way you organize your storage is not GitLab's responsibility.

There are about 100 people currently involved with this solution at my company. 

Their customer service is very helpful. They're really good. I communicate with tons of different support clients and GitLab's support is one of the best. A lot of people don't like calling support because it's often useless or annoying, but I would rate GitLab's support as a ten out of ten. I haven't had any complications. 

Positive

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. I don't remember having any issues related to the setup. 

There is an open-source edition and a commercial version. I've used both, but mostly I've used the commercial one. However, the open-source version is also very, very good. The commercial version is reasonably priced. It's about 20k annually. 

Checkmarx is a static analysis tool. GitLab offers, in turn, their own solution. They offer static analysis, dynamic analysis, and a lot of integration. They also offer integration with Checkmarx. There are a lot of features, actually, and plenty of tools. For the price, I think it's very comprehensive.

Compared to other products, for instance, Nessus, they're approximately at the same price level. I would put them all on the same level with approximately the same functionality, but GitLab is one of the best.

I would give this solution a ten out of ten. There are a couple of caveats, but compared to other products, GitLab is certainly the leading solution in the market right now. 

GitLab was mostly used for version control. All of the code was uploaded into GitLab and then shared across the company. We also used it for running CICD pipelines and automating those pipelines.

Basically, it was up to the mark. The solution did what it was supposed to do.

We had to write GitLab configuration files, commands and conditions, in a YML format. I would like configuration of a YML file to be done via UI rather than a code file. There should be support for code files, as well, but if there could be a UI for it and a little bit of documentation along with it, that would help.

I used this solution for two years.

The solution is stable. 

This is a scalable solution. We had around 200 users working with it. Two people are required for deployment and maintenance. 

The implementation was handled in-house. It shouldn't take a long time to implement because it's pretty basic stuff. It all depends on how much customization you want to have. 

My advice for others looking into this product is to go for it. GitLab is the future. There are some alternates, like Stash and Bitbucket, that have the same concept, but GitLab is one of the most widely used version control systems. It's easy to use.

I would rate this solution as a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case is for source code maintenance, then doing the build and running code coverage tools like SonarQube, and then deployment.

We have seen a couple of merge requests or pull requests raised in GitLab. I see the interface, the way it shows the difference between the two source codes, that it is easy for anyone to do the review and then accept the request; the pull request is the valuable feature. 

We have only seen a couple of times on Gitlab, which we use for building some of the applications. Recently, we have heard that some of the builds were taking a long time or were not scheduled. In such cases, they had to contact the GitLab community or the GitLab organization to address these issues.  

So, there is room for improvement in regard to the issues with build times. 

In future releases, additional features could be added in post-deployment monitoring. Currently, GitLab supports CI/CD up to deployment. Anything that would assist in monitoring deployments, especially in the context of Kubernetes or Docker, would be valuable. It may not be necessary for enterprise-level use, but for midrange organizations, integrating post-deployment monitoring of infrastructures and generating reports could be beneficial.

We have been using this solution for three years now. 

The solution offers good stability. However, sometimes we do see some issues due to upgrades and patches. But a couple of times, we have seen build issues where it takes a long time, or it gets stuck, and people have to manually restart those.

It is a scalable solution in our environment. We have over a thousand end users. 

The support is very good. 

Positive

Earlier, we were using Atlassian products, and then we shifted to GitLab.

The deployment is handled by a different team. For maintenance, we get good support from GitLab. For any production issues, we hear that we get good support from GitLab. That is something good.  

My advice would be it's a very good tool for developers, especially those spread across the globe. It has a very good interface for any pull request or code review. The CI/CD pipeline is also easily built in, so we can easily build and deploy it into various environments. So that eases the developer's and the production ops team's life.

Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

My primary use case is for creating pipelines and automation workflows.

By streamlining tasks that we used to do on a daily basis and scheduling them.

CI/CD, GitLab scanning, and the cloud are the most valuable features. 

There is room for improvement in GitLab Agents. 

I would like to see more features focused on GitLab or CICD. I am not sure if  there is a roadmap for GitLab CI/CD Elite.

I have been using GitLab for five years. I am currently using version 14.5.

It is a stable solution. I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability of GitLab a three out of ten. It is low. 

It can be challenging to scale. Sharing databases and removing multiple VPNs is not easy to handle. GitLab's stability is not as good as other platforms that offer Kubernetes engines. We use OEMs instead.

There are 300 to 400 users in my company. We definitely plan to increase the usage. 

We are familiar with GitHub. 

I'll give the initial setup a six, slightly above average, where one is difficult and ten is easy.

Now we automate everything, so let's say the deployment now takes about one hour to deploy.

For the deployment process, we create a template and prepare the VM on our cloud. Then we deploy the container using the controller, which deploys the solution.

We had IT specialists and engineers for the deployment process. 

It's a bit tricky because we have a different license. I rate the pricing mode a five out of ten for now, but it might change in the future. We have an educational license, and support is not included.

GitLab offers various services, and it's important to understand which ones you truly need. Service providers might have different capabilities, and compatibility with your existing devices can be a critical issue. We haven't faced many problems with network compatibility or duplicated services so far. 

If I could go back in time, I would recommend using GitLab primarily as a reliable repository. For additional features like scanning and monitoring, it might be beneficial to explore other specialized solutions.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We are using GitLab for team collaboration, code management, and certain CICD pipelines.

The most valuable features of GitLab are the CI/CD pipeline and code management.

Merge conflicts and repository maintenance could improve. If there is someone new to the system they would not know if there is a conflict.

In a feature release, it would be helpful if there was AI integrated into the system. For example, if there was a CI/CD pipeline available, we could configure them for our purpose without doing the process manually.

I have been using GitLab for approximately four years.

I rate the stability of GitLab a seven out of ten.

I rate the scalability setup of GitLab a seven out of ten.

I have experience using GitHub, but GitLab is a superior platform. One major advantage of GitLab is the ability to maintain a private cloud with a wide range of features. It also allows for quick setup of CI/CD pipelines. Garrett is becoming popular amongst developers for code maintenance.

The initial setup of GitLab takes a long time because there is a lot to configure.

I rate the initial setup of GitLab a seven out of ten.

I rate GitLab a seven out of ten.