zlacker

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+(OP)
Well said and matches my experience as well. A breadth of features but once you start actively using them in depth you find that the experience is not as polished.

>>yjftsj+(OP)
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.