[jmholla]

At least parts of what you say ring true in my experience following GitLab releases more closely (e.g. 1-2 months behind). I would highly recommend not self-hosting if you're going to go with GitLab. Performance issues will appear and disappear between updates, and sometimes on a whim and you're never quite sure what you did or didn't do.

I did find the support staff to be fairly responsive, but most of that time felt like me collecting diagnostic information with little actionable material, and sometimes I would have to explain the same thing multiple times in the same support ticket because it switched hands.

If you do still opt to self-host, dig into their documentation: there are little nuggets and hacks they use internally that you'll want to use to get the right performance out of it.

[cwsx]

I absolutely would not opt to self-host, but unfortunately that's not my department. I agree about the performance issues, most of our issues were performance related and did seem quite random (though unsure if that was our self hosted instance or a Gitlab issue, sounds like it could be both).

I will admit I'm probably overly harsh on the support staff, and misrepresenting the support issues we had. I wasn't directly involved in most of it so I'm parroting what I've heard from coworkers that were more involved, which isn't the whole story. Though the times I was directly involved (in support requests) the experience mostly matched yours, with a couple (albeit rare) cases of slow replies.

In terms of self hosting I 100% agree, and anyone who is thinking of setting up their own self hosted instance should take note of your comment.

[mardifoufs]

Self hosting is fine... but only for an internal instance. The release cycle is pretty extreme, with a critical security update seemingly popping up every two weeks. I mean that's better than not patching the issues, but it still means you have to stay on top of it. Having an internal/private network instance doesn't actually help you all that much, but it still gives you a little more breathing room.

(and I know it might contradict my earlier comment saying that Github's release velocity is a plus, but it doesn't. Most gitlab releases don't introduce useful features, they mostly patch security issues and regressions. For example, the Runners are in a dire need of tons of features and an outright rework of some parts, but barely get any. Which is sad since they were so far ahead of the competition not so long ago.)

[jmholla]

> The release cycle is pretty extreme, with a critical security update seemingly popping up every two weeks.

That just reminded me of my least favorite thing about their releases: they brag about releasig on time for however many months in a row, but they're always quickly followed up with bug and security fixes. I felt their presentation of consistency was misleading at best.