We've used GitLab CE internally for source code control + CI/CD since May 2014 (6+ years) and are currently evaluating their paid offerings as an overall replacement to Jira.
Based on my observations so far, Ultimate is quite expensive when you have an "all in" approach. Every user, despite whether they would use the feature set must be licensed as Ultimate under the current model.
I really wish there was some flexibility in how the licensing model works — right now, the all in approach is prohibitive to bringing on new users, as you need to justify the $1,200 upfront cost per user added — not all users / projects need to be licensed under the same tier — some user's needs are basic and cannot justify the cost of a license.
--
Some thoughts on how this could be addressed...
A) Assign a licence tier to a user (ie: Some users get Ultimate features, others are on premium with limited access to features)
B) Assign licenses based on projects — if a project has "Ultimate" features enabled, all users in that project count towards an "Ultimate" seat
Our org uses both Jira Server & Confluence Server - and I’m fairly sure this will make us move away from Atlassian’s products.
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].
Our org uses both Jira Server & Confluence Server - and I’m fairly sure this will make us move away from Atlassian’s products
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].
Yes, there still is no easy way to migrate Tempo data from Server to Cloud. Their advice is "there's an API - good luck" [1].
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.
Please stop doing this. Fishing for product insight on such broad opinions in an open forum does a disservice for Gitlab the product and the team. If it was a natural question... But this is so canned, every gitlab employee here does it, sounds flaky and impersonal. Almost troll-like, maybe even arrogant tbh.
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?
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.
Based on my observations so far, Ultimate is quite expensive when you have an "all in" approach. Every user, despite whether they would use the feature set must be licensed as Ultimate under the current model.
I really wish there was some flexibility in how the licensing model works — right now, the all in approach is prohibitive to bringing on new users, as you need to justify the $1,200 upfront cost per user added — not all users / projects need to be licensed under the same tier — some user's needs are basic and cannot justify the cost of a license.
--
Some thoughts on how this could be addressed...
A) Assign a licence tier to a user (ie: Some users get Ultimate features, others are on premium with limited access to features)
B) Assign licenses based on projects — if a project has "Ultimate" features enabled, all users in that project count towards an "Ultimate" seat