[arsome]

Too many things in Gitlab feel half-baked, like their requirements feature which is essentially just their issue tracker, no document management, just toss some issues in the bin. And they expect enterprises to pay for it because they checked the feature box.

https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/requirements/

[fletchowns]

I've had a good experience using GitLab for source code repositories, pipelines, and code reviews. I don't have much experience using it for issue tracking and document management since we use Jira & Confluence for that. For my own hobby projects outside of work the free tier has been great, and it was easy to host my own gitlab runner so that I don't have to pay for CI/CD minutes.

[epolanski]

Same here I only had good experience with it and I just can't get used to other PR review UIs.

That being said if I were a CTO I would not buy their services, I think they are too expensive.

[kyriakos]

PR review UI seems very bad to me compared to both github and bit bucket. So it's probably a matter of what you got used to first.

One of its major issues is not displaying merge conflicts in some scenarios, just tells you of the existence of a conflict and you need to figure it out outside the UI.

[lmiller1990]

To be fair, a lot of enterprise sales is based on "ticking boxes".

[liketochill]

Which is great until the users blame the tool because they can’t finish their work

[paulddraper]

I just think it's too ambitious.

Everything and the kitchen sink just will never be as good as best of breed.

[mekster]

Anyone can be ambitious. Without the right skill, it's just a failure.

[gscho]

Even though features are half-baked I still think the future is bright for them, especially if GitHub slips up or gets complacent. Intel showed us that it is possible.

[mekster]

I hate to see GitLab becoming mainstream if GitHub fails. We need a better alternative than a bloated one out of control.