GitLab Reviews

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. 

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.

I use GitLab to manage repository code sources, scanning code sources, and CI/CD. We have around 100 users.

GitLab helps us integrate with many types of software. You can deploy and integrate source code, various tools, webhooks, etc. 

I like GitLab's security and SAS tools.

GitLab could add a plugin to integrate with Kubernetes stuff.

I have been using GitLab for four years now.

GitLab is stable.

GitLab is scalable. You can deploy it in a Kubernetes cluster or on VMs.

We don't contact support. GitLab has such a huge community that you can easily find a solution in the forums. 

I have used Bitbucket and GitHub for personal use. We adopted GitLab because it's a good enterprise solution.

GitLab is easy to install and takes you less than a day. You download the GitLab package, configure it, and push the repos. If you want to integrate Sonar Cube or Jenkins, you can use webhooks or the Jenkins file.

GitLab has a good ROI because it can accommodate many users, and it increases your DevOps score.

GitLab has three plans: starter, professional, and LTMH. The LTMH is $99 for user permits, but some integrators in Morocco bundle GitLab into a package. It's reasonable, but they could lower the price now that we have a huge community and many users.

I rate GitLab eight out of 10. It's a good solution for DevOps and managing Ripple. It's possibly the most complete DevOps and DevSecOps platform. You can help users to make wonderful stuff with their source code and applications. GitLab supports many types of source code like Python, Ruby, etc. It's great software.

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. 

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.

Our company uses the solution as a repository manager for our best code, to set up CI/CD pipelines, and to build projects and get architects. We build code and generate artifacts that we push to UrbanCode for deployment. 

For one use case, we created an entire CI/CD pipeline that deploys code to the artifact and Target Server. This deployment was our first using the solution and included a lot of scripting. The customer has 250 current users that includes maintenance, owners, and developers.

Eventually, we plan to use the solution for all deployments. 

The user interface is really good so that helps with huge teams who need to collaborate. 

The solution is great for SCM, depository management, building, and CI/CD.

The solution does not have many built-in functions or variables so scripting is required and that is a drawback. For example, it would be nice to have a button on the interface for setting up environments in meta folders. 

I have been using the solution for two years. 

The solution is stable. Performance comes down slightly when multiple pipelines for a complex project are triggered at once. I rate performance a seven out of ten. 

We use the solution on-premises so do not scale in the way others do on the cloud. 

Technical support is very quick. I raised two tickets and and they followed up regularly which was great. 

Our company currently uses UrbanCode for deployments. Eventually, we want to conduct all deployments in the solution. 

The setup is straightforward so I rate it an eight out of ten. 

Our company includes a four-person deployment team who implements the solution for customers. 

Our internal team handles maintenance of our GitLab server. Every month, we download, install, and publish patches or upgrades to our community. 

The solution is based on a licensing model that includes technical support and is paid annually. Our company currently has between 430 to 480 licenses. 

The solution is newer to the market so other tools with longevity such as Jenkins are more popular. The solution is slowly emerging as its potential as a complete CI/CD setup becomes known. 

UrbanCode is specifically designed as a deployment tool and dominates because of its efficiencies. The user interface has built-in functionality for creating multiple environments, creating approval processes, and downloading artifacts. Conversely, to perform these same functions in the solution you must script the configuration file. 

Java includes Deployment Managers and agent pools for deploying to a Target Server. The solution might not be good for deployments because there isn't enough flexibility to create them quickly. We can script, but it is easier to click buttons for deployment functionality. 

I recommend the solution and rate it a seven out of ten. 

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.