Thanks for the feedback. To address some of it:

Regarding batch review: We wanted to ship this way sooner. We spent an unfortunate amount of time refactoring our merge requests to use Vue. That is now done, so work on this has started and should be shipping on August 22nd, with GitLab 11.2. See also the epic on the subject: https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/23

All the other issues you referenced should get appropriate priority. I recently made a change in what team is responsible for code review, so that we don't have to choose between code review and issue tracking features, but rather between different features related only to Git. This should help. (i.e. responsibility went from the 'Discussion' team to the 'Create' team).

Regarding viewing large diffs: we're working hard on a better solution. Follow the epic for the full picture: https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/15

I’m already following the issues but since you’re here please, please can we have merge + tag in one step and also rebase + merge.

https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/22363

Cool feature. Makes total sense. Pinged the relevant people.

GitLab has stated they want to manage the full software delivery process for ages now. There are other basic code repo managers out there (Gogs, Gitea, ...). GitLab is obviously able to invest a lot more in their product, but part of the reason for that is that they're not just focusing on being basic code repo managers.

For example, GitLab CI/CD is far more useful to me than configurable tab width would ever be. It's not a basic code repo manager feature, but there's a clear reason why they're focusing on one more than the other.

agreed. After a few years of this, I've given up hope of them focusing on the core project. They have basic usability errors in their merge request and approval flow that makes the product a pain. For example, in 3+ years of using the product, I still have no idea where to find all the merge requests where I am listed an an approver. Our slack channel is littered with folks re-asking people to review their code because there is no way to tell what you need to review.

But instead of focusing on the core features, here's probably what they will launch instead:

- a slack like chat app

- a trello like app

- a yammer like app

- redesigning the left nav once again

- adding even more UI clutter in the merge request box because they still haven't jammed enough crap in there

> I still have no idea where to find all the merge requests where I am listed an an approver.

Click this image in the top right-hand side: https://i.imgur.com/vWOxECQ.png

Approver, not assignee. You can be an approver without being assigned the MR.

Ah, that's something else indeed. I guess it does show up in the TODO list which is the button to the right of the one I linked earlier, but there's a lot of other cruft in there, including already merged MRs.

> but there's a lot of other cruft in there

The ToDos is a sort of inbox of actionables. We don't use approvers because we use assignees for MRs but here you'll get anything that requires (or may require) some action on your part, like mentions, assignments, CI job failures you're responsible of... ToDos get automatically "done" when you act, such as replying to a mention. Alternatively you can manually mark some issues as "done" or "to do". I like this workflow personally use them to great effect by practicing a form of Inbox Zero, and combined with the personal issues and MR lists they give me a good picture of what I have to do.

> ToDos get automatically "done" when you act

Well, that's not flawless. I never use the TODOs view, because it's full of items like this:

https://screenshots.firefox.com/wxy2llOZM5g0HWre/gitlab.com

In other words, there's a number of issues assigned to me listed there, even though they're closed. There's also a few mentions that I don't otherwise interact with (I've seen them in my email and that's that), so I'd have to manually mark those as Done in the GitLab interface after reading them in my email.

We completely agree with you here. We want TODO to be meaningful and useful to everyone. The UX team is working through an exploration issue to address this, we would love to hear your thoughts on the issue: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/43474

Thanks for your feedback. I've just taken on merge requests as part of my responsibilities, and hope to schedule this soon!

Here's a link to the issue: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/1951

I'll

They've already done the first 2. Though the chat app part was done by someone else.

> - a slack like chat app

They have, the Omnibus variant as well as the gitlab-ce docker container based on it includes Mattermost with integration. Just awesome, actually.

Paying customers.

Specifically, the person who signs off on Gitlab at a company is generally some kind of project manager so they value project management features.

All the extra features is the main selling point of GitLab. It's the reason you use it over GitHub because GitLab is more than just repo hosting and issue tracking.

That, and the fact that you can self-host

You can self-host GitHub, too: https://enterprise.github.com/home

You can, at entreprise prices indeed. Which is out of reach for most SMEs out there. This is IMHO a llarg part of what made Gitlab successful.

The price is roughly $21 per user per month, which isn't really all that enterprisey, given you have at least 10 users, that is.

I don't know exactly how GitHub Enterprise and the GitLab Community Edition compare in that regard but aspects such as usability, maintainability and updatability are much more important than saving $21 per user per month.

So, yes if your company has a lot fewer than 10 Git users GitLab probably is the best option. In every other case, it depends and the pricing advantage becomes less pronounced.

Sure, Github definitely has worth. I use both myself.

But for a petty price, Gitlab comes with a Kanban board, a release management system, a (free) CI tool, and all of the newer features I don't have experience with ( the whole Kubernetes integration lately? ). (So no need for paid travis, Asana, Jira, ....).

Adding to that that most cloud providers offer ready to use images with Gitlab installed, I understand what it becomes such a 'default choice' for new installs lately.

Compare apples to apples, at least. The paid GutLab plans are as expensive or more than GitHub. And they keep raising their prices too cuz they aren’t making enough money to survive. The big difference for us (Apple) is performance and reliability. GitLab isn’t reliable and GitHub Enterprise is rock solid with whatever we throw at it. That’s better than a bunch of features (to my team, at least).

GitLab the company was cash flow profitable in the first quarter, with 90% margins and doubling incremental revenue (IACV) YoY. We're very much default alive.

Our biggest customer installation had a serious problem in 2015 and we addressed it. We have customers switching from GHE because of the reliability of GitLab self hosted. There are problems on GitLab.com, we made solving that harder because we insist on running the same code our customers are running, so we'll never have a repeat of 2015.

We would love to get in touch to discuss any performance problems you're still having.

> The big difference for us (---) is performance and reliability.

If that's the name of your employer, bear in mind that you can get into massive hot water for using it to endorse third-party products without authorization.

Ive read about them using both systems. Seems like teams have flexibility to choose what they want. As they should. And some prefer GitLab.

Cool to hear that Apple uses Github. I don't think we disagree. Gitlab has had reliability issues the last months/years. Probably in part due to their rapid growth. And I still prefer the stability of the Github infrastructure compared to gitlab.com.

I was trying to say that, in my experience, Gitlab has become the defacto VCS tool for new/small companies that want something self-hosted.

What's interesting is, I do see the trend slightly change the last year, as Gitlab becomes heavier and people switching to gogs.

In the end there is probably enough space for all depending on your needs.

GitHub enterprise is a walled garden: you can’t use it to host open source software.

Github has Enterprise edition for self-hosting: https://enterprise.github.com/home

At $2,500 per 10 users / year [1], vs the GitLab Community Edition download at https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/ (it looks like a MIT license)

Maybe it's worth the price. Did anybody used both of them and is willing to tell us how they compare?

[1] https://enterprise.github.com/features#pricing

Ultimately, I think, Git is a PM tool. Its benefits are __not__ exclusive to programming / code. The future for Git is much broader. GitLab is likely positioning, leading, and leaning into that future.

Git has never been anything other than a project management tool - who do you think had to organize code changes in the 1980s?

Then? Those (other) tools? That workflow? It was for version control.

Today? The needs are different, and Git needs a better wrapper to do that. Thus, GL's emphasis on less code-centric (more PM-y) features.

In all the scenarios I've been involved in implementing a new version control solution, there are already existing project management and issue tracking solutions in place, and appearing to want to replace them is a hurdle to be overcome rather than selling point. We use Gitlab, and the CI and Issue tracking features all sit idle, but better integration with Jira would be valuable, cause ain't no way we're switching issue trackers.

Replying to myself. Oh, I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just pointing out how the incentives line up with the outcomes :-)

GitLab has moved past being a "a code repo manager" and is creating a tool to manage the entire SDLC. My reaction to this is the opposite of yours. Adopting it has already allowed us to get rid of Jenkins (shudder), and will soon allow us to replace Jira as well. Your wishlist is reasonable enough but I like the direction they are going.

I wish I could build my .NET code in Gitlab which runs exclusively on *nix.

If you self host, you can install a runner on a windows host and use the powershell executor

Exactly. We support Windows runners for several tools and they work fine. Our developers delight in adopting obscure build tools and we have been able to support them all. On a humorous note, when I told my management that we had updated our process to support "yarn" and "gulp" they wondered if I was just making stuff up.

Can't you do Windows runners even on cloud? I thought there was a callout on their pricing that said that your custom runners don't count toward usage metrics.

You can connect Windows runners to the cloud. I made an example project here:

https://gitlab.com/allthethings/allthethings.gitlab.io

Agreed that GitLab could really do with some development of boring, unsexy, wholly necessary features now that they're seeing some well-earned adoption. Please, please, please add batch review.

Add to that list that big diffs with many files (which are a bad practice, but do happen) causes the entire browser tab to freeze up.

I LOVE that they are providing alternatives to ugly and slow Jenkins. Gitlab is so much nicer!

Hi. Co-founder of CloudBees here (and sometimes contributor to the Jenkins project). I have described the UI as far worse words than that myself, but things are changing:

- Reboot the UI (it isn't just changing existing, but replacing): https://jenkins.io/projects/blueocean/

- Getting rid of version numbers and updates, and fiddling with plugins by hand: https://jenkins.io/blog/2018/04/06/jenkins-essentials/ (make it ever green, like browsers)

- Jenkins X - which is really about how you build apps on Kubernetes: https://jenkins-x.io

- We also have https://CodeShip.com - for those that don't need the on-prem/self hosting flexibility/extensibility and want things to work as a service.

Its great to see so much activity in CI/CD these days, really cool to see. Hopefully if you run into Jenkins again one day in the future it wont be the one you have a bad memory of.

We are paying for gitlab, and the only think I'd like to see from this list is rebase before merge...

I think gitlab are doing a pretty good job with their product.

Currently GitLab lavks global/group level setting to connect a k8s cluster, so we have to set it up one by one for each project hosted on it.

When you pick tabs over spaces you have to live with the fact that many people will pick a width different from yours. :)

You can use git for these "core" features?

Batching code review comments is a feature of the code review tool

It's definitely not exclusive to gitlab/hub/whatever. You've been able to do this on mailing lists when reviewing a patch since, well, ever since email was a thing.

Plus one for configurable tab width, jfc.