To store the data.

Git merging allows us to track the details of how and who has done what. This is the best feature which is useful for all companies.

As we are using it in Kubernetes clusters, we don't have any issues.

GitLab needs to improve the CI/CD functionality because it is not compatible with Jenkins and other tools, as it is not that efficient. Security-wise, we have security features enabled in GitLab for code vulnerability and other aspects, but it is not up to market standards.

Approximately four to five years.

Recently we had an issue where an employee left the company and their commits were erased. We raised a request with GitLab support, but they were unable to help because they could not find the root cause of what went wrong. We restored the data from previous backups.

GitLab is suitable for small and mid-size organizations, but not for enterprise use.

We raised a request with GitLab support when an employee's commits were erased, but they were unable to help because they could not find the root cause of what went wrong.

Positive

I worked with GitLab Enterprise at a previous company. GitLab Enterprise is far better than the free version. For enterprise-level customers, we can recommend GitLab Enterprise. Regarding competitors, we have explored GitHub, Bitbucket, and CircleCI. However, GitLab Enterprise has more features than any of these tools.

I am working with Kyndryl, which is part of IBM. They have their own decision-making team who manages these aspects.

We are currently using general GitLab, not GitLab Premium.

We are using Jira and Confluence, but not Bitbucket.

We are currently using GitLab integrated with Sonar for code vulnerability checks, Jenkins, Camunda, and XL Deploy. We use Camunda to deploy folders and XL Deploy for server deployment.

We are not using the security features on the GitLab side, as we use different tools for that purpose. My team is not using the GitLab merge request process, but we work on providing GitLab access for admin activities, as developers are in different teams handling development and merge requests.

We are using basic features currently, so I cannot comment on detailed functionality comparisons. Every versioning control tool provides similar basic features, and we are not utilizing the full functionality of GitLab.

The system is easy to use.

On a scale of 1-10, this solution rates a 7.

Public Cloud

Google

My most common use cases for GitLab are development and managing repositories, primarily focused on code development work.

The features that are really useful for my use case generally include pulling, merging, and ensuring the pipeline is upright, which are very intuitive.

It helped me personally and my team to save time and money.

In terms of impact from using GitLab as an all-in-one DevOps platform, it helped with my project development life cycle.

Regarding improvements, making task management is something that GitLab can potentially make easier, similar to what DevOps or Jira does.

I have been working with GitLab for about two years.

The deployment and initial setup were not difficult for me to complete. The pipeline management was easy.

The setup process took less than an hour.

In terms of project management overall, I haven't faced any issues such as downtimes or losing the repository.

I haven't contacted technical support of GitLab.

When comparing GitLab with GitHub, I haven't really seen any noticeable difference.

I have worked with Azure DevOps before and found it really intuitive to use.

I have used GitHub and GitLab as well, and I find that they've been fairly intuitive to use.

Regarding GitLab, I purchased an enterprise license, though I'm not aware whether I or my company bought this license from AWS Marketplace or elsewhere.

I'm not aware of any integration with other tools or third-party applications.

I haven't faced any difficulties with user interface or deployment.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate GitLab an 8.

Private Cloud

Other

Our primary use case for GitLab involves software development, such as storing sources, automation, and pipelines.

The features I find most useful for our development workflows include Git, merges, branches, code reviews, and pipelines. The code review tool is pretty good, and its general usability is commendable when compared to GitHub. It is user-friendly, easy to use, and easy to administer. GitLab handles a significant amount of repositories, sources, and users effectively without data loss, even though it may slow down occasionally.

One significant feature we lack is the configuration that enforces code reviews, which simplifies the development life cycle. Unfortunately, this is available only at a higher license level than we currently use. Additionally, improvements are needed for stability, as the system tends to degrade over a few days and often requires a restart.

I have been working with GitLab for approximately six years.

The self-hosted version of GitLab is not very stable when under load. It slows down and requires restarts every few days. The updates are frequent and demanding, happening at least once a week due to security reasons. While understandable, this often breaks running pipelines.

In terms of scalability, GitLab in the cloud is easy to scale, but the self-hosted version is moderately easy, requiring some skills.

We have contacted support in a couple of situations, and they were responsive and okay.

Positive

We have used Subversion, GitHub, and GitLab.

The cloud-based setup is straightforward and easy. However, self-hosted setup is complex, requiring good DevOps and significant orchestration.

The pricing and cost are on par with other tools and are neither too expensive nor cheap.

I have evaluated Subversion, GitHub, and GitLab.

For those wanting to use GitLab, I recommend going with the cloud version as self-hosting is problematic. I rate GitLab an eight out of ten.

Private Cloud

Other

We use GitLab for deploying our applications into different environments. It serves as more of a DevOps platform.

The CI/CD pipelines in GitLab are highly valuable. Another important feature is the single source of repository, allowing efficient repository management and source code management. GitLab provides manageability by allowing us to manage source code effectively through separate repositories. Additionally, GitLab enables the creation of individual CI/CD pipelines for each repository, making software more agile. By integrating GitLab as a DevOps platform, we have enhanced agility, improved our time to market, and different teams can work collaboratively on various projects.

GitLab should embed security features when dealing with source code. It is essential to conduct proper testing, such as unit tests and code coverage, within the SDLC pipelines. Incorporating tools like JMeter or load testing into the pipelines would be beneficial.

I have been working with GitLab for around four to five years.

The deployment process with GitLab takes approximately half an hour to forty-five minutes, which is not very time-consuming.

I have no complaints regarding stability. GitLab maintains an availability of 99% plus.

Currently, GitLab is not easy to scale because GitLab has specific deployment instructions. We deploy it on one of the VMs. For scaling, other deployment options from GitLab's side need to be adopted. Vertical scaling is different from horizontal scaling, and there are different types of scalability.

GitLab's support is very helpful. They utilize a severity and priority ticket system, with corresponding SLAs, to address our inquiries efficiently. The support team is quite knowledgeable.

Neutral

I previously used Jenkins. However, GitLab is a better tool because Jenkins requires different plugins which need to be installed and managed individually, whereas GitLab is a more complete DevOps platform, requiring minimal integration.

GitLab is easy to set up, with guided instructions and documentation making the process straightforward. On a scale from one to ten, I would rate the ease of setup as eight.

Since adopting GitLab as a DevOps platform within the entire SDLC process, we have become more agile and improved our overall time to market.

GitLab is somewhat expensive. The cost depends on the subscription plan adopted, such as premium or ultimate, typically charged per user.

Jenkins is another tool I evaluated before choosing GitLab.

GitLab is a great tool that simplifies management and reliability. It allows the creation of individual CI/CD pipelines for different repositories, enhancing agility and helping software development teams expedite market delivery. I rate GitLab nine out of ten in overall satisfaction. My overall rating for GitLab is 9.

Public Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

The broad use of GitLab is for code check-ins, but I also use it for issue management and backlog management. It has integration with testing tools as well, and I utilize those features. GitLab supports code collaboration alongside issue and backlog management. Everyone within my team or pod, as we call it, can see each other's issues. The scrum master can look at the velocity and the burn-down charts.

I find all the CICD pipelines valuable, along with the simplicity it offers developers. When comparing it, certain features available in Jira are not present. Specifically, the ability to have weights at the milestone and epic levels does not exist. However, the security features are good and restrictive.

Certain features in Jira are not available in GitLab, such as the functionality to have weights at the milestone and epic levels. Hopefully, these features will be resolved with work items in GitLab. Also, if the child items are open in GitLab, closing the parent should not be allowed. While GitLab is a great tool for developers, it lacks project planner features. Roadmaps and Gantt charts in GitLab are not as advanced as in Jira, and changing start and end dates is more laborious in GitLab. Bridging the gap for project planners would make GitLab a more complete tool.

I have been using it for about a year.

I have not really encountered stability issues. I would rate it probably an eight.

I would say the solution is easy to scale.

I do not have direct contact with customer service. We have relationship managers who deal with GitLab directly.

Neutral

The initial setup was relatively easy.

In my company, the number of users is around ten thousand. If we are talking about my project, the figure is probably more around the three hundred mark, but it will grow to about six hundred users. In my company, that figure would be anything between five and ten thousand people.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. Also, maybe, if GitLab is supporting any AI-driven projects or if it has any automation elements, it supports them. We have AI-driven projects where the code is stored in GitLab. GitLab Copilot is something we are looking to introduce soon. If you want to maintain your issues in GitLab and raise your book of work and features, then GitLab is a great tool for collaboration and integration with code deployment and CICD pipelines.

Public Cloud

Other

We use CI/CD for producing a Docker image. Afterward, we use Argo CD with Helm for deployment on OpenShift. Initially, we had the open-source version, however, we upgraded to the Ultimate version for security scanning and other features.

The CI/CD pipeline with Helm has significantly improved deployment speed and efficiency. Before using this solution, our deployments took four to five hours. Now, we can deploy applications in ten minutes. The Ultimate version offers enhanced features for security scanning through DAST and SAST analysis, which have greatly benefitted our project workflow.

The licensing model could be improved to be more accommodating in terms of user numbers and costs. This would serve more users better.

I have been working with GitLab for three years.

We use a partner, and they are very competent. We have not had the need to open a support ticket directly with GitLab.

Neutral

Before GitLab, we used Jenkins. We used GitLab as a Git repository and Jenkins for pipelines. With Jenkins, we produce Docker images and conduct tests and compile Java projects.

We have saved time significantly, reducing deployment time from four hours to five minutes per deployment.

The price is high, and it limits user accessibility. When we shifted from the open-source to the Ultimate version, we had to reduce the number of users due to the licensing model.

We did not evaluate other options as we are currently satisfied with GitLab.

I recommend GitLab for security features and rate it eight out of ten. 

However, the licensing model could be more flexible to accommodate a broader user base. I especially recommend it for public companies and government-related entities.

I am using GitLab primarily as a code repository and for CI/CD tools and deployments.

The feature I appreciate the most about GitLab is its ease of use and compatibility, which allows for straightforward building and deployment processes. 

Continuous integration with deployment is very powerful, which is a significant reason for migrating from TFS to GitLab. Its documentation is extensive, and YAML files are user-friendly, making the deployment process more or less straightforward.

There are missing search features, particularly when searching repositories or applying filters. Additionally, I have encountered issues with the deployment of CI/CD pipelines, especially dealing with variable environments. 

Creating a YAML file with numerous variables can be challenging without a way to separate them by different environments. It would be beneficial to have a user-friendly interface for setting up these configurations, instead of just writing YAML files.

I have been working with GitLab for a little over a year as I transition from TFS.

The stability of GitLab is impressive. Everything, including runners, functions smoothly without any issues.

Technical support from GitLab has been satisfactory. I have had meetings where they taught me, explained things, and provided guidance for starting from scratch. Overall, my experience has been pretty good.

Neutral

I am transitioning from TFS to GitLab, mainly due to the powerful continuous integration capabilities of GitLab.

Currently, I have two developers partially dedicated to creating the CI/CDs, Firebend, and repositories.

Migrating to GitLab is bringing time-saving benefits, and everything is easier to automate. This transition is crucial for us.

The pricing of GitLab is reasonable, aligning with what I consider to be average compared to competitors.

I am migrating from TFS to GitLab.

I would appreciate some AI-driven helpers, similar to Visual Studio's Copilot, integrated into GitLab. This could enhance the user experience by providing assistance during configuration. I rate GitLab a nine out of ten points.

We are using GitLab for source code configuration and for CI/CD processes.

The CI/CD process is very efficient. We are utilizing the pipelines extensively and gaining significant benefits from GitLab.

We are not using the AI process yet, however, I would like to see AI support in GitLab. Maybe it already does. I am not sure how it supports AI processes.

We have been using GitLab for two years.

GitLab supports us very well.

We do not have any direct technical support from GitLab. We ask questions to our IT department, and they may seek external support if needed.

Neutral

We have just tried Jenkins. We are using GitLab. GitLab has better support, and its features are superior compared to Jenkins.

The initial setup was handled by our IT department.

GitLab is a cost-saving tool and is particularly effective for coding processes.

I do not have any recommendations or suggestions. I rate GitLab a ten out of ten.

On-premises

Mainly, we use GitLab as a source control repository, and I use GitLab CI for the CI/CD pipeline.

GitLab's source control is excellent. Having the source control and pipeline in the same platform makes integration seamless. It is already integrated, with no need to configure any webhooks or other settings. 

Implementing CI/CD with GitLab has accelerated the time to market significantly. As we implement automated testing and DevSecOps, it speeds up the process by forty to sixty percent.

GitLab should enhance its GitOps capability as they are currently using FluxCD, however, Argo CD is better and offers more features. GitLab should work on improving their user interface for GitOps as it is lagging behind.

I have been working with GitLab for more than three years now.

GitLab is very stable with no issues in performance or availability.

GitLab is highly scalable, but in our current architecture using Docker containers, it isn't. That is why we're transitioning to OpenShift for future scalability with increased user numbers.

I have interacted with architects for some advice during the implementation, and they were prompt in their response. However, I have not had to open any support tickets yet.

I have worked with several CI/CD tools, including Jenkins, Azure DevOps, Tekton, and Jenkins. GitLab CI is more powerful than Jenkins and Azure DevOps and comparable to Tekton.

The initial setup of GitLab was straightforward. We have it installed as a Linux package and as a Docker container, which took very little time.

I have used Tekton before, the vanilla version on Kubernetes and Red Hat's version of the pipeline.

Overall, I recommend GitLab to other DevOps teams due to its powerful CI capabilities and having most tools you need on the same platform. It enables seamless integration and automation. I rate GitLab nine out of ten.

I use GitLab to manage our development lifecycle. We use it to store code and automate our CI/CD pipeline. Once developers commit their code, the CI/CD pipeline automatically starts, supporting development through various stages. It is part of our software development life cycle.

GitLab enhances productivity and reduces time since many tasks are automated. I appreciate the team collaboration it offers, enabling multiple people to work on the same Git repository seamlessly. 

Additionally, it streamlines our DevOps processes with automated CI/CD pipelines.

There are some challenges with repository file management as GitLab may struggle to manage larger files. Improvements could be made regarding size management and file partitioning. 

Also, the UI has remained the same for a couple of years and could benefit from an update with AI features and better customization.

I have been using GitLab for three or four years.

I have not encountered any performance or stability issues with GitLab so far. It has remained stable and reliable.

GitLab is scalable as multiple users can simultaneously access it without issues.

We have rarely needed to escalate issues to technical support since GitLab usually runs seamlessly. Occasionally, issues might arise if the URL isn't up or due to server problems.

Positive

I have worked with Bitbucket. In comparison, GitLab is more advanced, particularly in terms of cloud capabilities.

Setting up GitLab is smooth and straightforward. There is no complexity as long as you're familiar with the basics. A simple code can be reused, facilitating easy installation and use.

GitLab is mostly free, with potential costs arising from upgrade versions. There is a trial period of about six months during which it is free. Afterward, fees apply.

I have experience with Bitbucket and Jenkins, and both serve as alternatives to GitLab for version control and CI/CD pipelines.

I recommend GitLab for DevOps engineers. It is easy and fast to use. While Jenkins is also good for understanding, GitLab offers an easier user experience. I rate GitLab as ten on a scale of one to ten.

On-premises