matthewmuscat

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].

[1] https://www.tempo.io

[2] https://about.gitlab.com/direction/maturity/#plan

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].

[1] www.tempo.up [2] https://about.gitlab.com/direction/maturity/#plan