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.

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.

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.

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.

GitLab is predominantly used for software development and practicing DevOps. GitLab CI/CD is one of the best features, and the solution is used primarily for software development.

GitLab is robust software and easy to use. There is excellent documentation available on their site but it can be overwhelming for early learners.

They incorporate new features every September, and they have introduced their own code editor and AI features.

The pricing has been substantially increased, which is a major concern. While GitLab has a lot of documentation, the complexity and volume can be overwhelming, especially for new learners. Structuring the documentation more effectively could help alleviate this issue.

GitLab was resold for approximately two years.

The solution is stable, and there have been no noted glitches or latency issues.

The solution is easy to scale.

Customer service and support are good.

Previously we worked as resellers of other IT software like Snyk and Aqua Cloud Security.

The initial setup is medium in terms of difficulty. It's neither too easy nor too difficult.

Pricing is relatively expensive.

Previously explored solutions like Snyk and Aqua Cloud Security.

GitLab is a very good solution.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We use GitLab in the new project for CI/CD, integration, and deployment.

You need to have a good knowledge of the product in order to use it.

I have been using GitLab for six months.

GitLab is a stable solution, and we haven’t faced any bugs.

Around 40 people are using the solution in our organization.

We previously used SVN and Jenkins. We switched to GitLab because it is an advanced tool with many new features.

The solution's initial setup is easy if you follow the official document.

We are using the free version of GitLab.

I am working with the latest version of GitLab. I would recommend the solution to other users based on their requirements. It is easy to learn to use GitLab if you understand Git commands.

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

We use the solution as a source code manager or version control manager.

In our software development lifecycle, GitLab is used as a component for code repository management. We use GitLab for several projects to handle code repositories. For other software projects, we use Bitbucket, but the use case for both is very similar.

Many global users prefer GitLab for its enhanced pipeline automation for CI/CD features. It stands out among source code managers due to its parent-child pipeline feature. If users want to leverage this feature, they should consider using it. It’s not the only platform with this capability, but GitLab excels in automating many operations and offers integration with other platforms.

The solution supports platforms like Azure, GCP, and AWS. This capability makes it a preferred choice, even though other platforms also offer similar integration features. Additionally, GitLab’s tendency to be independent of ownership by another major company makes it an attractive option for many developers who prefer cloud usage

The tool's UI is good.

In the next release, I would like to see GitLab expand its integration capabilities to include platforms like DigitalOcean, which developers widely use for cloud infrastructure. Enhancing CI/CD automation features specifically tailored for DigitalOcean would be beneficial.

I have been working with the product for more than six months.

The solution is stable.

The product is scalable.

The tool's technical support is great.

The solution is free.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.

When a developer checks in code, it is automatically built and deployed, and automated test cases are also run. We have extensive integration with GitLab, which helps us with source code management. We run the static code analysis using SonarQube.

Technologies are always changing. Nowadays, new things like serverless computing and workload management have emerged. We have noticed a few gap items for faster service delivery. For example, we do user interface testing in the latest team and automate it using some tools. Recently, we integrated a tool with user interface testing, which can simulate a multi-user environment. So, we would like to see more integration with different platforms.

We normally do load testing for an hour, extending that load with two or three different use cases. We increase the load by two or three times to check how the application responds. This helps us see if the application can withstand increased load, though it may reject messages or requests when it can't handle two to three times the normal load.

We do endurance or soak testing by leaving the system at the rated load, like 300 requests per second, for 12-16 hours to observe stability. We monitor for CPU leakage, memory leakage, queue building, and similar issues. If there are any problems, we fine-tune and fix them. For performance testing, we test at multiple levels: one at the service level and two at the system level. We normally don't test at the integration level.

My company has 90 users.

The solution's deployment is straightforward. We have containerized applications that are deployed to the environment.

GitLab was deployed in-house.

The main value and impact of using the product are significant. We create and maintain vulnerability-free software by integrating tools like ManageEngine, which periodically patches our runtime environments, including operating systems, kernels, and software. Additionally, we run automated Nessus scans periodically, every week and day, to identify new vulnerabilities even after applying patches.

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

We do two levels of security scanning. One is at the build level, where we integrate with security packages and use tools like OWASP for top vulnerability compliance. This ensures that all third-party tools, like Tomcat and JBoss, are scanned as part of the build.

The second level is a reactive scan at runtime. We scan Oracle clients, JDKs, JBoss, Tomcat, Log4j, and other components during runtime. We also consider the operating system's security. Before we complete software testing, we use Nessus to perform a runtime security scan.