zlacker

>>MattIP+(OP)
I'm incredibly pleased about Microsoft's acquisition of Github, as I notice visible improvements every passing month. Considering Gitlab's pricing, I wonder why anyone would abandon GitHub Team or Enterprise plan in favor of Gitlab. Gitlab's costs are exorbitant, and they resemble Atlassian products, with an overwhelming number of features that are rarely used, cluttering the interface and diminishing the overall user experience.

>>mirzap+k5
IMO Gitlab's offering is far more comprehensive and can't really be an apples to apples comparison.

Plus, I greatly appreciate the transparency of many of the features that Gitlab sells around security outlining exactly which open source tools they use so that you can just go do it yourself on the CI pipeline. The real value for the premium security tier is when you have a team coordinating multiple projects.

I've seen Github try to upsell to enterprise with features that I can just install in a few minutes using the tools that Gitlab tells me about.

>>bright+Dh
I dunno, gitlab looks more comprehensive if you just look at a checklist "do they have feature X, Y, Z?" but if you look at depth and quality of implementation a lot of their features fall apart. Even issues, which seem like one of the top 4 things they do (git, MRs, CI, issues) are fine for simple stuff but fall apart after that (Have you ever wanted to search for an issue based on something mentioned in a comment on it? Good luck!).

They're also buggy, and in my experience I keep hitting bugs that are long-tail and therefore never prioritized to actually fix.

>>yjftsj+Nj
Agreed - I'm working at a place that's switching from GitHub to GitLab because it's cheaper (or was when the project was started; maybe still is because GitLab can replace a couple of other tools as well). The checklist looks impressive but I find myself thinking "GitHub does this better" a lot of the time.