GitLab Reviews

The solution's most valuable features are pipelines. GitLab allows you to automate things and show them diagrammatically.

The solution is much harder to get around and organize extra features. It has fewer options, and its UI is not so user-friendly.

I have been using GitLab for one year.

GitLab is a very stable solution.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

I rate the solution’s scalability a seven out of ten.

Although the solution's documentation is publicly available, you have to invest much more time to read everything and understand how to get around.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is very easy and ten is difficult, I rate the solution's initial setup a six to seven out of ten.

The solution's pricing is acceptable.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a six out of ten.

I got familiar with the CI part of the tool. If you want to use all the features for testing and packaging, you have to use the paid version.

Overall, I rate the solution a six 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.

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.

My team primarily uses GitLab for CI/CD purposes. Whatever code I develop has to go with the team, so I work in a team that tries to write its version of the code, or uses the ticketing system, takes a ticket, covers that information, and then updates the main branch about it. That's the use case my team has for GitLab.

We're only using the basic features of GitLab and haven't used any advanced features. The solution works fine, so that's what we like about GitLab. We're party using GitHub and GitLab. We have a GitHub server, while we use GitLab locally or only within our team, and it works okay. We don't have any significant problems with the solution.

We also found the straightforward setup, stability, and scalability of GitLab valuable.

I've noticed an area for improvement in GitLab, particularly needing to go through many steps to push the code to the repository. Resolving that issue would make the product better.

My team quickly fixed it by writing a small script, then double-clicking or enabling the script to take care of the issue. However, that quick fix was from my team and not the GitLab team, so in the next release, if an automatic deployment feature would be available in GitLab, then that would be good because, in Visual Studio, you can do that with just one click of a button.

I've been using GitLab for almost four years.

As of now, we don't have any issues with GitLab stability-wise. We never faced any critical issues, so everything's going smoothly.

GitLab is a scalable solution.

We didn't use the technical support for GitLab because there are specific people within our organization that we can contact about issues, for example, access issues or permissions, and they give us access to the folders.

We haven't used any other build automation product other than GitLab.

We found the initial setup for GitLab very straightforward. We're developers, so we develop the code, then push that code to our branch. We have a moderator who keeps track of the testing process, so from our side, we already have the steps and what needs to be done and written, so we follow those steps to set up GitLab.

The implementation of GitLab was done in-house within my company.

As I work in a vast enterprise, I'm unsure about the licensing cost for GitLab. It's the management team that takes care of that.

I'm a developer, so I write all the code from scratch, but I don't use predefined platforms. I've been using GitLab and Visual Studio, though.

As GitLab is only used within my team, only five people use it.

My team uses GitLab almost every day, then when a project is complete, my team pushes it back into GitHub.

My team is an end-user of GitLab.

Regarding recommending GitLab to others, I'm a developer of data science solutions, so I mostly do end-user tasks rather than developer tasks. As of now, nothing was so bad about GitLab, and I didn't come across any significant hardships in using the solution. For a person like me who uses resources in a bigger enterprise, there shouldn't be problems using GitLab. If you're part of a small company, there could be some issues.

My rating for GitLab is seven out of ten.

We are using GitLab for code management. We put code onto their servers. This allows developers to have a centralized place for code collaboration.

GitLab has helped our company save time. In our current project, we have split the job into two parts, one team is working on one particular feature and when done the solution merges the code together. Every two weeks we can release a new APK. We have the latest code in development so we don't need to merge code manually.

The solution receives frequent updates, it is always improving.

The most valuable feature of GitLab is the automatic merging of code.

I have been using GitLab for approximately seven years.

GitLab is highly stable.

The scalability of GitLab is good.

All developers are using GitLab in my company.

I plan to increase the usage of the solution in the future.

I rate the support from GitLab a four out of five.

Positive

I have previously used Bitbucket and Filezilla.

The initial setup of GitLab is easy.

There are different licensing options available, including a free limited-user license.

We evaluated other options before choosing GitLab.

One person can do the maintenance of the solution.

My advice to others is for them to use GitLab for managing their code.

I rate GitLab a nine out of ten.

During the development environment, we have a different number of developers, close to five. So each of them will have a different project. Maybe some of them do it in one project, but their assignment or the activity they are doing may be different, so they will do their activity and then they will push it to the GitLab. If there is an amendment or update required, they will pull it from GitLab and if they do their activity again, they will push it. 

GitLab also does the merging . The merging feature makes it easy later on for the deployment.

I would like to see security increased in the future. A secure environment is very important.

I have been using GitLab for the past seven years.

The cloud provides good stability for GitLab.

GitLab is scalable. I think they have their own actually premium services. So, there are some functionalities and features that may be added on top of the free version.

The initial setup of GitLab is easy and straightforward. You do not need to be a deployment expert. It can be done by the managers or directors. 

GitLab can be done in-house but we are using CloudWatch. All you need is to have a free account.

The initial setup cost is excellent and you can add the premium features later.

Using GitLab is important to help provide a more secure and reliable environment for developers working with information in the cloud. GitLab brings a level of safety. I would rate GitLab a ten out of ten.

GitLab's best features are continuous integration and fast deployment.

GitLab's UI could be improved. In the next version, the documentation of the migrations steps should be better.

I've been working with GitLab for six years.

GitLab is very stable.

GitLab is scalable.

GitLab's technical support is quick and responsive.

Positive

The initial setup is pretty simple for GitLab as a service, but it's more complex for a hosted solution.

GitLab is comparatively expensive, but it provides value because it's feature-rich. I would rate its pricing four out of five.

I would rate GitLab nine 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.