GitLab’s Origin: A Side Project That Became a Movement

In 2011, Dmitriy Zaporozhets found himself facing a common developer frustration - his team needed a better collaboration tool, but his employer wasn’t willing to invest in one. Rather than settling for less, he built his own. That project would soon become GitLab.

What started as a personal solution quickly resonated with developers worldwide. Within a year, GitLab had attracted over 300 code contributions, growing into a fully open-source project.

In 2012, Sid Sijbrandij came across GitLab and saw its potential beyond a side project. He envisioned it as a cloud-based source code management (SCM) platform that could offer an alternative to existing solutions. To test this idea, he posted about GitLab on Hacker News, asking developers if they’d be interested in a new GitHub competitor.

Image Source

The response was overwhelming. Hundreds of developers signed up for the beta, validating the demand for GitLab. A year later, Dmitriy quit his job  to focus on GitLab full-time, and together with Sid built GitLab Enterprise Edition, adding features requested by larger organizations.

Initially bootstrapped with Sid’s $100K, GitLab entered Y Combinator’s 2015 batch, and growth skyrocketed.

GitLab’s GTM Strategy: A Community-Led Flywheel

From the beginning, GitLab’s growth was community-driven. Instead of relying on aggressive sales tactics, GitLab built a developer-first adoption motion - one that would later become the foundation of its Dual Flywheel Strategy.

How GitLab’s Community Took Off

GitLab’s early traction was organic and developer-led. In an interview with SaaStr, Sid Sijbrandij shared that the first wave of adoption came from the Ruby subreddit and Twitter. Since GitLab was built using Ruby on Rails, it naturally resonated with the Ruby developer community, leading to discussions, feedback, and early contributions.

This grassroots momentum quickly accelerated - 300+ code contributions, a Hacker News post, and a founder induction later, hundreds of users signing up for the beta.

By the time GitLab Inc. was founded, the team was intentional about structuring its community.

Image Source

They defined:

• The Core Team - GitLab Inc. employees
• The Wider Community - Open-source contributors and GitLab users

Unlike GitHub, which was proprietary software sitting on top of Git, GitLab took an open-source-first approach. They also open-sourced their internal processes through their 6,000-page handbook, ensuring full transparency in decision-making.

This radical transparency built massive trust - developers and enterprises knew exactly what they were getting with GitLab, reducing barriers to adoption.

By structuring an engaged community, GitLab built not just a fanbase but a development engine - one that fueled both product velocity and business growth. This structured innovation loop became the foundation for its dual flywheel strategy.

The Dual Flywheel Strategy

GitLab’s growth wasn’t just fueled by adoption - it was engineered through a two-pronged flywheel strategy that reinforced itself over time. According to the GitLab handbook, these two flywheels worked together to drive long-term success:

1. The Open Core Flywheel → Tracks wider community contributions

• GitLab’s open-source model attracts developers, who contribute features that improve the product.
• More contributions → A better product → More users → More revenue → More contributions.

2. The Development Spend Flywheel → Tracks GitLab’s internal engineering contributions

• GitLab reinvests revenue into R&D, improving product features to attract and retain more paying customers.
• More investment → More features → More paid users → More revenue → More reinvestment.

Together, these flywheels drove exponential growth, with community contributions fueling product innovation while GitLab’s internal investment scaled the business.

1. The Open Core Flywheel:

Image Source

More features → More users → More contributions → More revenue → More features
The Open Core Flywheel capitalized on GitLab’s open-source roots, making developer contributions a growth engine rather than just an engagement strategy.

Faster Feature Development:  In 2015, GitLab was accepted into Y Combinator, where one of the core tenets was: "Launch early. Launch often." GitLab took this lesson to heart and committed to publishing a new feature on the 22nd of every month - no matter what.This approach turned GitLab into one of the fastest-evolving DevOps platforms. While GitHub introduced ‘issues’ and left them untouched for years, GitLab iterated constantly, shipping incremental improvements that developers were actively asking for.

With 2,700+ active contributors, GitLab reached an exponential rate of product improvement - ensuring that no developer frustration went unresolved for long.

Conversational Development: GitLab didn’t just talk about iterative development - it baked it into every stage of its engineering process. Instead of waiting for a feature to be fully polished, teams identified the Minimum Viable Change (MVC) - the smallest possible enhancement that could provide immediate value to users.

For developers, this meant faster fixes, quicker feature rollouts, and a platform that actually listened. Unlike traditional waterfall development cycles, GitLab shipped fast, iterated faster, and adapted in real-time - making it the preferred choice for teams that valued agility.

To keep this flywheel running efficiently, each stage had specific KPIs managed by different teams - ensuring that every contribution, new feature, and product upgrade translated into tangible business growth.

Image Source 

Tracking MRARR - A  noteworthy metric from GitLab’s contribution model is MRARR (Merge Request ARR) - which tracks merge requests from paying customers.

Higher MRARR = Stronger retention & better product fit - as enterprise users contributing to GitLab are more likely to stay and shape its roadmap. By tracking MRARR, GitLab ensures its biggest customers are not just users, but co-creators of the platform. 

2. The Development Spend Flywheel:

More Merge Requests (MRs) → More Mature Product Stages → More Monthly Active Users → More Paid Seats & Revenue → More R&D Investment → More Merge Requests

In the Development Spend Flywheel, GitLab tracks how investing in research and development (R&D) directly impacts product growth and revenue.

Here’s how it worked:

• More investment in R&D → More Merge Requests (MRs) from GitLab’s own engineers. 
• More MRs → More mature and feature-rich products.
• Better features → More users, increasing Monthly Active Users (MAUs).
• More active users → More upgrades to paid plans, increasing revenue (ARR).
• Higher revenue (Delta ARR) → More reinvestment into R&D.

Essentially, GitLab reinvested revenue back into faster product improvements, which kept developers engaged and customers upgrading - fueling continuous growth.

Since GitLab is a complete DevOps platform, its true value came when companies adopted multiple stages - source code management, CI/CD, security, and more.

One breakthrough insight changed everything: There were several stages for which developers could use Gitlab in their software development journey - manage, plan, create, verify and so on. The more product stages a company used, the more likely they were to upgrade to a paid plan.

Adding just one extra product stage tripled conversion rates!

GitLab’s Developer Relations (DevRel) team played a key role in keeping this flywheel running. Wider community contributions helped accelerate feature maturity, driving faster adoption and revenue growth. By open-sourcing early-stage features, GitLab encouraged developers to test, refine, and improve them faster. This ensured that when a feature reached full maturity, it was already highly valuable - making it easier to monetize in enterprise plans.

Structuring the Community for Scale

But GitLab didn’t stop at letting the flywheels run on their own. To ensure consistent growth, GitLab invested heavily in its community, structuring programs and optimizing engagement through a Community Funnel - a framework that moved developers from discovery to advocacy.

GitLab structured its community-led motion into five stages, ensuring that every developer engaging with GitLab had a clear path toward deeper participation.

Image Source

1. Awareness - Developers first discover GitLab through blog posts, social media, speaking engagements, and Sid’s active participation on Hacker News. GitLab tracked this phase by measuring unique page views and impressions.

2. Interest - Developers engage by following GitLab on social media, signing up for webinars, or starring GitLab’s repositories. Programs like GitLab for Education (offering free GitLab access to students and educators) helped introduce the platform to future developers and contributors.

3. Intent - Users show interest in contributing by joining Slack channels, opening issues, registering for trials, or signing up for GitLab forums.

4. Contribution - This is where real engagement happens - developers begin submitting merge requests, reporting bugs, and discussing improvements in GitLab’s forums. GitLab actively optimized this experience by launching Merge Request Coaches, automated bots, and structured contribution guides.

5. Advocacy - GitLab’s most engaged contributors became GitLab Heroes - recognized evangelists who were celebrated, trained, and invited to exclusive events like hackathons and meetups. These developers, in turn, spread GitLab’s influence, driving more awareness and adoption.

GitLab’s community wasn’t just a marketing asset - it was an organic GTM engine. By investing in structured programs, they created a self-sustaining loop of developer adoption and advocacy.

By 2021, GitLab’s “wider community” had grown to:

• 2,700+ code contributors
• 15,000+ meetup contributors
• 96 GitLab Heroes
• 1M+ education users
• 25,000+ forum members, generating 800,000+ monthly pageviews

“Our community is our best marketing asset, our best product incubator, and a giant competitive advantage.” - Ashley Kramer, CMO, GitLab.

How GitLab Won Over Developers Despite Open Core Skepticism

When experimenting with Monetisation, GitLab adopted an Open Core approach - where the core platform remained free, but advanced features were monetized for businesses.

GitLab’s Open Core model unlocked a scalable revenue stream, but it wasn’t without its challenges. Developers have historically been wary of Open Core models - often fearing that companies will prioritize revenue over community, lock users into proprietary ecosystems, or limit open-source participation.

GitLab knew these concerns could erode trust, so they tackled them head-on, ensuring their business model didn't alienate the very developers who fueled their growth.

1. Constrained Participation

Developers often worry that Open Core companies will limit contributions to keep premium features behind a paywall. GitLab took the opposite approach - actively encouraging participation.They didn’t automatically reject contributions to existing paid features. Instead, they evaluated them based on:

• The quality of the submitted code
• Contribution acceptance criteria
• Alignment with GitLab’s product vision

By allowing the wider community to be part of these decisions, GitLab reinforced transparency and ensured developers felt ownership over the product.

2. Vendor Lock-In

A major concern with Open Core is that premium features will make it hard for users to switch or integrate with other tools.

GitLab tackled this head-on by ensuring open integrations and extensibility. They provided:

• APIs for almost every feature
• Flexible deployment options (self-hosted & cloud)
• Compatibility with external DevOps tools

By keeping GitLab interoperable, they eliminated the fear of being locked into a proprietary ecosystem.

3. Community is Devalued

Another common concern is that Open Core companies see their developer community as just a way to acquire customers, rather than a valued part of the ecosystem.

GitLab disproved this by making community engagement a measurable company-wide KPI. They tracked "wider community contributions per release" as a critical metric - a direct acknowledgment that open-source contributions weren’t just an afterthought but a core driver of GitLab’s success.

4. Constrained Deployment

Enterprises often hesitate to adopt Open Core products due to unclear licensing terms, fearing that they might accidentally violate policies or face unexpected restrictions.

GitLab resolved this by:

• Licensing the GitLab Community Edition under the MIT License, an official OSI-approved open-source license
• Providing clear documentation on which features were free vs. paid

And to reinforce their long-term commitment to open source, GitLab made a public promise:

"When a feature is open source, we won’t move that feature to a paid tier."

They acknowledged that features might evolve, merge, or shift, but once something was in the open-source version, it would never be locked behind a paywall later.

By addressing the most common Open Core fears upfront, GitLab successfully built an enterprise-grade business without losing developer trust.

Developers continued to contribute, knowing their work wasn’t being exploited. Enterprises felt confident that GitLab’s paid tiers provided real, scalable value rather than just artificial paywalls. This delicate balance between open-source engagement and business sustainability became a key differentiator - one that set GitLab apart in a space where many others struggled. 

The result?
With this transparent approach, GitLab transitioned from an organic, developer-led adoption motion to an enterprise sales powerhouse - securing over 50% of the Fortune 100 as customers. This playbook didn’t just drive growth - it helped GitLab scale to an $11B valuation, proving that developer-first GTM, when executed well, can lead to enterprise-scale success.

Key Takeaways

1. Community-Driven GTM isn’t Just a Growth Hack - It’s a Competitive Moat

What GitLab Did:
GitLab didn’t just “build a community” - they structured it for scale. They defined roles (Core Team vs. Wider Community), incentivized contributions, and built engagement programs like GitLab Heroes, meetups, and hackathons. This ensured their users weren’t just passive consumers but active participants in product development.

What This Means for You:
A strong developer community isn’t just a marketing channel - it becomes your best growth engine, best product incubator, and strongest retention strategy. 

Best Practices:

• Clearly define how your community fits into your product strategy (contributors, advocates, or just users?).
• Incentivize participation beyond just “engagement” - can users actively shape your product roadmap?
• Invest in structured community programs (meetups, champions, and incentives) to create organic evangelism.

2. Developer Experience is the Best Growth Lever

What GitLab Did:
GitLab didn’t just build a product for developers - it built with developers. By prioritizing rapid iteration (Conversational Development), open-source transparency, and community contributions, GitLab created a platform that developers felt invested in. This made GitLab not just a tool, but a movement.

What This Means for You:
A great developer experience (DX) isn’t just about documentation or UI - it’s about creating an ecosystem where developers feel heard, valued, and empowered. Companies that prioritize DX turn users into contributors and contributors into advocates.

Best Practices:

• Reduce friction in onboarding - make it easy for developers to get started.
• Ship fast and iteratively - adopt an MVC approach like GitLab to roll out features quickly.
• Engage developers in product decisions - track community feedback and act on it visibly.
• Celebrate contributions - GitLab’s "Merge Request ARR" metric turned contributions into a business driver.

3.  Open Source Can Be Your Enterprise Sales Foot in the Door

What GitLab Did:
Unlike GitHub, GitLab was fully open-source from Day 1, but they didn’t stop there. They also open-sourced their internal processes (6,000+ pages of documentation) to drive transparency. This not only built trust but ensured GitLab was evaluated in nearly every DevOps procurement conversation.

What This Means for You:
Open-source isn't just a distribution strategy - it’s a trust signal and an inbound sales lever. GitLab’s free tier created massive adoption, making their paid plans the natural next step for enterprises.

Best Practices:

• Open-source a part of your product that makes adoption frictionless.
• Ensure your open-source model aligns with enterprise sales - free for developers, but paid features for decision-makers.
• Transparently communicate what stays free and what goes paid - don’t erode trust by moving free features to paid tiers.

4. The Best GTM is a Fast Iteration Loop.

What GitLab Did:
GitLab’s "ship on the 22nd of every month" cadence ensured they were constantly iterating. This wasn’t just about product velocity - it became a growth and marketing differentiator. Developers knew that GitLab was faster at implementing feedback than GitHub, making it the more attractive alternative.

What This Means for You:
Consistency in product updates isn’t just good for development - it builds trust, engagement, and retention. If users see your tool evolving at hyperspeed, they’re less likely to churn and more likely to bet on your roadmap.

Best Practices:

• Set a fixed product launch cadence (e.g., GitLab’s monthly cycle).
• Make iteration a visible marketing strategy—communicate improvements constantly.
• Use community engagement as an early feedback mechanism to prioritize features.

5. Open Core Can Work - If You Do It Transparently

What GitLab Did:
Most developers hate open-core models because they fear vendor lock-in. GitLab neutralized these concerns by doing everything transparently.

What This Means for You:
If you’re using an Open Core model, transparency is non-negotiable. Any perceived "bait-and-switch" will kill developer trust. Instead, define clear rules for what stays free vs. what’s monetized - and communicate them early.

Best Practices:

• Make contribution pathways clear - can developers improve both free and paid features
• Offer APIs and integrations to reduce vendor lock-in concerns.
• Set a public promise about free vs. paid features to avoid backlash.