GitLab DevSecOps platform enables software innovation by aiming to empower development, security, and operations teams to build better software, faster. With GitLab, teams can create, deliver, and manage code quickly and continuously instead of managing disparate tools and scripts. GitLab helps teams across the complete DevSecOps lifecycle, from developing, securing, and deploying software. Differentiators, as described by Gitlab:
Simplicity: With GitLab, DevSecOps can…
Bugzilla had many of the same common features necessary for bug tracking. However, the ease of use that Jira provides while abroad is essential for many companies, and is the ultimate decision maker for those establishments. Additionally, while bugzilla includes a time setting …
I didn't use other product like Bugzilla. so I don't have any other feedback on other products. But I would say Bugzilla is the best software that is for our company. We are using that, and we will use that too. So all the positive feedback. Thank you so much.
We migrated away from the whole suite of Rational tools because of their massive complexity around administration and inflexibility regarding workflows. In addition, the suite was insanely expensive, and users hated the usability of the tools. We evaluated, and liked JIRA, but …
Bugzilla is very easy to use, very intuitive, and user friendly! For agile projects, the Kanban is very useful and you can drag and drop the defect to change his state. I work 10 times faster with Bugzilla.
Bugzilla is affordable and easier to use by newly forming team or group in our organization. As the team grows bigger we still continued to use Bugzilla as it is comfortable to use. We tried JIRA tool for bugtracking but it was expensive when compared to Bugzilla so switched …
JIRA from Atlassian, Quality Center from HP, TRAC were a few other tools that we had considered. The core features are present in almost all the competing tools. Bugzilla may not have a user interface as good as other tools, but serves the purpose very well as a bug tracking …
For most bug tracking systems, it stacks up pretty well considering the cost (it's free). But for a little investment, you can license JIRA which is far superior.
Bugzilla was free, so we selected it for the price and ease of implementation. We used many open source products, and Bugzilla was a good fit for the skill levels of our developers and easy for the team to use.
As mentioned earlier, the features like chart visualization sets it apart from the others. Other than that, GitLab is open source while other are not and comparatively more secure that its other counterparts. Also, GitLab supports adding other types of attachments which is not …
When i was using the other platform, Some time i face down time, But GitLabs its not happening for single time. GitLab is having easy user interference as compared to other platforms. Pull Request, Code review, Issue tracking, Merging, Access control and User Roles is having a …
GitLab is miles ahead of the competition. In so many words, having a simple UI with robust security and the ability to conduct Git actions takes the cake. The competitions like to say they can do these things easily but their products are more confusing and hard to use.
GitLab allows a self-hosted version that is easy to setup and configure. It is also open-source as compared to GitHub. The integrated CI/CD tools is a plus, since we do not have to worry about those tools, unlike Github. The All-in-one solution of GitLab made sense for our …
Gitlab offers the best support for CI/CD pipelines and the highest degree of customisation for workflows, permissions, and integrations. The integration of BitBucket with JIRA is better than GitLab but CI/CD features are limited in comparison. GitLab's built-in Container …
Gitlab provides basic functionality like any other git tool. Some features of push and pull requests , clone and merge is handled equally well. It lacks in AI features which are there in GitHub and setup processes are difficult. Cost difference is the only concern while …
GitHub is an inferior product from most points of view. We had to use it and the teams finds no positives about it. Everything is a downgrade from our previous GitLab solution.
GitLab CI\CD is vastly superior to workflows, for example doing a manual node is just "when : manual" …
It's much simpler than the competitors. The one important feature Gitlab stand out is the CI/CD pipeline. GitHub required integration with external CI tools but Gitlab has this feature built-in. Compare to Jenkins and Teamcity, It's easy to use without any additional Plugins. …
Gitlab seems more cutting-edge than GitHub; however, its AI tools are not yet as mature as those of CoPilot. It feels like the next-generation product, so as we selected a tool for our startup, we decided to invest in the disruptor in the space. While there are fewer …
i have more exoerence in GitLab rather than bitbucket . As personally , it is good for me to understand how things is going on. i have used personally and also in organisation . It is great for developer to see there 3 months ago code and also can come up with new solution to …
Because with Visual Studio code, it was very easy for us to install GitLab in it and have easy access through the terminal and due to GitLab, it was easy to implement codes regarding API and AWS services to make our software better. Gitlens and all features help to check the …
GitLab provides a far superior platform due to it's great integration and CI/CD focus. And while in the beginning the UI might look a bit overwhelming with use you will find it way more useful than it's competitors. The variables and settings also make way more sense and it's …
My feedback may not be important here because when I joined the company they already had GitLab and we still use it due to the ability to do CI/CD Integration, deployments, debugging, code owners approval, and Jira integration. So far we have not had any major blocker that has …
Github is more open-source first and enterprise-first second in their approach. The reverse is true for GitLab. Both are exceptional products and it highly depends on the specific needs of an org
GitLab has a open-source community and great documentation that provides support resources and community contributions. AWS CodeCommit is used for integration with other AWS services in the AWS ecosystem and also have a low community and support compared to GitLab hence …
It was a management decision to use GitLab over other tools. It integrates well with RBAC using Terraform. Runners are easy to setup. Almost all the features the organization used before are available in GitLab.
For small projects or companies that do work on a few only code repositories selecting one of the git code hosting services like GitLab, GitHub, Bitbicket etc does not make a big difference.
But, if you are on a code development company that handles too many repositories and …
Software delivery is the key objective and GitLab made it much easier to hit the group quickly. It worked well with automation, and integrations with other SDLC tools used in the Organization and it is really easy to use. It's widely adopted and has the power to deliver what we …
GitLab's online IDE and code modification is much better compared to Stash. While pricier than Bitbucket, Gitlab also provides CI CD configuration better than BB.
For any organization that follows a SDLC (Software Development Life Cycle), Bugzilla is a great tool that will facilitate documenting and tracking software issues. Email reminders notify users in the workflow process of who needs to work take action or what the status of the bug is. Task leaders/managers can keep a tab on the overall status of the software bugs. It may not have the bells and whistles of other tools, but serves the purpose as is, out of the box.
It is well-suited for any project that needs VCS. It's an excellent choice for teams that might be remote or have to collaborate across teams. Plenty of features allow for async working. With its dashboards and reporting features, it is also suitable for nontechnical PMs or stakeholders. It allows for very bespoke customization and can most often do much more than you need it to.
Project synchronization. Used as the primary resource for bug tracking, bugzilla can serve as a powerful project synchronization tool. Every aspect of the tickets can be tracked; status changes, comments, added watchers, who's currently working on the issue, and if it's related to another issue.
Unlimited Space. I currently work with a company who services hundreds of clients - and bugzilla helped us manage each one.
For companies with a need to service many different projects, or iterations of the same project, bugzilla handles this task exceptionally well.
Workflow assignments. Workflow is customizable by the simply selection of a checkbox. If ever the workflow needs to be altered, doing so is as simple as a .2 second "click".
User interface is terrible. It was built in the 90s and still looks like it. While the back-end is robust, the front-end is antiquated. It provides too many options and is easy to break.
Reporting is weak. It provides some basic statistics but doesn't provide details. You can find out how many reopens there are, but you can't know how quickly things go from reopen to complete.
Doesn't have the best "canned" workflows. Software is done by teams. Bugzilla doesn't "out of the box" have workflows that mimic what a typical software organization does.
For future projects I will look at something that is hosted in the cloud that I don't have to manage. I would also like something that has a more modern feel to allow my customers to use it as well as my employees.
I really feel the platform has matured quite faster than others, and it is always at the top of its game compared to the different vendors like GitHub, Azure pipelines, CircleCI, Travis, Jenkins. Since it provides, agents, CI/CD, repository hosting, Secrets management, user management, and Single Sign on; among other features
This is a pretty straightforward system. You put in the bug details, a ticket is created, the team is notified. The user interface reflects this very simple and straightforward flow. It's certainly much easier than trying to track bugs with using Excel and email.
I find it easy to use, I haven't had to do the integration work, so that's why it is a 9/10, cause I can't speak to how easy that part was or the initial set up, but day to day use is great!
I've never had experienced outages from GItlab itself, but regarding the code I have deployed to Gitlab, the history helps a lot to trace the cause of the issue or performing a rollback to go back to a working version
GItlab reponsiveness is amazing, has never left me IDLE. I've never had issues even with complex projects. I have not experienced any issues when integrating it with agents for example or SSO
Since it is open source, it doesn't have customer service. However, the amount of information on forums is vast. If you can wade through it, you'll get what you need
At this point, I do not have much experience with Gitlab support as I have never had to engage them. They have documentation that is helpful, not quite as extensive as other documentation, but helpful nonetheless. They also seem to be relatively responsive on social media platforms (twitter) and really thrived when GitHub was acquired by Microsoft
Implementation was pretty simple. Particularly because the product cannot be customized so there is not much to do apart from getting it up and running.
Bugzilla is affordable and easier to use by newly forming team or group in our organization. As the team grows bigger we still continued to use Bugzilla as it is comfortable to use. We tried JIRA tool for bugtracking but it was expensive when compared to Bugzilla so switched back.
GitHub is an inferior product from most points of view. We had to use it and the teams finds no positives about it. Everything is a downgrade from our previous GitLab solution. GitLab CI\CD is vastly superior to workflows, for example doing a manual node is just "when : manual" in GitLab while you have to do clickops in GitHub to achieve the same. No overview of code in branches is a minus when we tried to figure out what our colleagues are trying to merge as it looked off.