GitLab CI

“It's so trivial to put together any CICD pipeline that it barely registers as a skill you need to develop.”

“GitLab's pipelines are made up of a set of stages, and stages are made up of a set of jobs.”

“Templates make them easy to replicate and components give them more flexibility.”

“forcing all jobs/pipelines for a repo through one file controlled with a load of 'if' rules is a complete mess”

“It has a wider feature set and is just generally easier to use.”

“GitLab is very easy to fan out CI/CD runners on your own k8s infra.”

“Gitlab pipelines seem much more straigh forward to understand for me.”

“small teams would run into so many footguns with CI that we had to throw up guardrails to prevent mistakes”

“Gitlab CI has a nice feature to limit concurrency by using resource groups”

“overall it's pretty good, it scales to more complicated setups, and it's not too painful”

“I just hate "put shell scripts in YAML to define how this should work"”

“Not that I haven't shot myself in the foot with GitLab pipelines on numerous occasions.”

“I prefer GitLab's approach of sharing functionality and logic via references to other YAML files”

“Template and job composition works brilliantly, top-level object being the job and not the stage result in flat, easier to read config files”

“But for CI/CD GitHub doesn’t even come close to GitLab in the usability department”

“Random things don’t work the way you think it should and the worst part is you must learn their stupid custom DSL.”

“It's so sad that we can't just run local validations on the CI/CD script through a local emulator.”

“Gitlab is by far easier to do fairly complicated stuff with”

“Gitlab's CICD offering is way more robust than Github Actions.”

“GitLabs CI/CD language is to me so much better - it has really strong abstractions and you can model a lot of developer experience into it.”

“I had such a better experience with gitlab CI than any other I have used.”

“Gitlab CI, while more powerful than some alternatives, is so so bad, its YAML-based syntax included.”

“that's only possible because of the way that Gitlab models their jobs and stages”

“The legacy Gitlab way is horrible and it makes it basically impossible to run pipelines locally.”

“GitLab has the mechanism to connect repos, but not the workflow for testing a DAG of unmerged interdependent changes.”

“you're basically testing each MR in isolation against the current state of the target branch”

“it took something like 32 gigs of ram on their MergeRequestProcessor SideKiq worker”

“Every time I thought I understood GitLab CI, it would fail/behave in non-obvious ways.”

“No matter what I did, every time I touched our CI pipeline code I could be sure to run into yet another Gitlab bug.”

“GitLab CI is _excellent_. Github Actions has come a long way, but a few years back it was absolutely painful working with GA when I had GitLab CI for reference.”

“I remember GitLab supporting a lot of the YAML features missing in GitHub like anchors”

“GitLab CI is pretty close to being actually good. Certainly less brittle than GitHub Actions from the looks of it”

“for everything else it's objectively worse than the alternatives (like Gitlab CI)”

“Gitlab, which is much much better than GitHub actions.”

“Not in love with its insistence on recreating the container from scratch every step of the pipeline”

“Personally, I prefer the CI/CD setup on GitLab over GitHub Actions.”

“Gitlab CI is so much better than GH Actions that they are not even in the same league”

“Gitlab smokes and rolls githubs shitty ass CI all day any day for over 10 years now”

“GitLab CI/CD is miles ahead of the dumpster fire that is GitHub Actions”

“I still feel that Gitlab CI is miles better than GH actions.”