GitLab vs Gitolite: What are the differences?

Introduction

In this document, we will explore the key differences between GitLab and Gitolite, two popular software tools used for managing Git repositories. Both GitLab and Gitolite offer features related to version control and code collaboration, but they differ in several aspects.

1. Access Control: GitLab provides comprehensive access control features that allow administrators to manage user permissions at various levels, such as project, group, and instance. It supports fine-grained access control with role-based permissions, allowing administrators to grant or restrict access to specific users or groups easily. On the other hand, Gitolite offers a more limited access control mechanism, which relies on SSH keys and configuration files. While it still provides basic access control, managing permissions in Gitolite may require more manual configuration and administrative effort.

2. Web-based Interface: One notable difference between GitLab and Gitolite is the presence of a web-based interface in GitLab. GitLab offers a comprehensive web interface that allows users to perform various Git-related operations, such as creating repositories, managing branches, merging requests, and performing code reviews, all without having to use the command line. In contrast, Gitolite primarily focuses on providing a command-line interface for repository management and lacks a dedicated web-based interface.

3. Issue Tracking and Continuous Integration/Deployment: GitLab includes built-in issue tracking and continuous integration/continuous deployment (CI/CD) capabilities, making it a complete DevOps platform. It allows teams to track and manage project issues, create and assign tasks, and streamline the development process. GitLab's CI/CD features enable users to automate build, test, and deployment processes directly from GitLab. Conversely, Gitolite does not offer in-built issue tracking or CI/CD functionality, requiring users to integrate additional tools or services to achieve similar capabilities.

4. Repository Hosting Options: GitLab provides both a cloud-based solution (GitLab.com) and a self-hosted, on-premises option called GitLab CE (Community Edition). This flexibility allows users to choose the deployment model that best suits their requirements. Additionally, GitLab offers a robust Git repository hosting solution with support for large file storage, code reviews, and continuous integration. On the other hand, Gitolite is primarily designed as a self-hosted solution and lacks a cloud-based offering. Organizations using Gitolite need to set up and manage their own server infrastructure for repository hosting.

5. Integration Ecosystem: GitLab has a broad integration ecosystem, allowing seamless integration with various third-party tools and services. It supports integrations with popular development tools like JIRA, Jenkins, Slack, and many others, enabling users to streamline their development workflow. Gitolite, however, has a more limited integration ecosystem and may require additional configuration or development effort to integrate with other tools.

6. Community and Support: GitLab has a large and active community, which results in a wealth of resources, documentation, and community-driven support options. Users can benefit from the knowledge shared by the community and access specialized guides, tips, and best practices. Gitolite, while still having its own community, may have a comparatively smaller user base and less extensive community support.

In summary, GitLab and Gitolite differ in terms of access control capabilities, web-based interface, issue tracking and CI/CD features, repository hosting options, integration ecosystem, and community support. GitLab offers a more comprehensive and feature-rich solution for managing Git repositories, suitable for organizations looking for a complete DevOps platform. On the other hand, Gitolite provides a lightweight and flexible option for self-hosted repository management, which may be suitable for organizations with specific needs and who are willing to invest more manual configuration effort.