Gitlab is great for their developer niche, but the relatively weak issue tracker and wiki lets them down for more general use. Still, Gitlab is a great company with momentum and a roadmap. Feel free to join us [2] in looking at such alternatives.
[1] https://tempo-io.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/THC/pages/8969584...
"Relatively weak issue tracker and wiki" got me interested - mind elaborating in more detail what brings you to this conclusion? :)
Thanks!
You really don't know why Gitlab is not an issue tracker like Jira is? I'm sure you do, or at least you should know. Being an issue tracker like Jira is not even a bad thing! So why try to look like you think you can be as bad as Jira?
/rant (from a Gitlab fan)
sorry that it came around this way. I was really interested in your honest opinion, as my personal experience with Jira is limited at this point with 7 months into my new role. I have been asked about it during past GitLab trainings in my old job, but never used it in production myself. May sound weird, but I learn the most from users sharing their experiences :) Hence my question, it would help my research.
The split between cloud and server offerings is partly to blame here
My thoughts go out to the businesses that have built plugins for Jira and had to endure the variances between cloud and server, or worse, only catered for the server market.
The group at tempo timesheets[1] particularly come to mind here
Thinking ahead - I’m hoping that an org like GitLab (who have got their Saas v On-Prem offerings balance right) is able to keep building on and catering for this space.
Their planning features are not there yet, but there’s a great group of people with oodles of traction and a roadmap that aligns with this problem space[2].
[1] www.tempo.up [2] https://about.gitlab.com/direction/maturity/#plan