Which Continuous Integration library to use? [closed]

C

9

6

I've worked with Cruise Control as the CI framework in my last project. Any recommendations on some other tools?

(Not that i found CruiseControl lacking, just wanted to know if someone did some comparisons)

Cartel answered 21/9, 2008 at 10:20 Comment(0)

G

12

We have had great success with Hudson. It is easy to install and configure, has a great range of plugins and a good web user interface. The checkstyle and cobertura code coverage plugins are two that we use.

Garrido answered 21/9, 2008 at 10:33 Comment(1)

For more on "CC vs Hudson", see: #604885 – Ruella 22/5, 2009 at 8:14

H

9

JetBrain's TeamCity is pretty cool.

Hitandmiss answered 21/9, 2008 at 10:35 Comment(2)

+1 for TeamCity. Much better than CCnet in both installation/configuration as well as general usability. – Farber 21/9, 2008 at 11:19

+1 for TeamCity. It's usability is simply incredible. – Fulbert 26/6, 2010 at 13:55

C

7

We use Bamboo.

For a rather extensive feature matrix of the various major CI servers, have a look at: http://confluence.public.thoughtworks.org/display/CC/CI+Feature+Matrix

Cantor answered 21/9, 2008 at 11:19 Comment(1)

+1 for link to feature matrix...thx. – Wanderoo 8/1, 2009 at 17:51

J

5

Since I've switched from Ant to Maven as my build system, Continuum is the obvious choice. It's very clean and offers all the features that I need.

Jarlen answered 21/9, 2008 at 10:23 Comment(0)

C

5

I second Peter's recommendation for Hudson. Continuum and Hudson are both very easy to set-up and use (compared to CruiseControl), but Hudson offers a lot more functionality. If you're interested, I've previously written about why I would choose Hudson.

TeamCity, with its pre-tested commit functionality, is also a good choice if you can live with the limitations of a free Professional Licence (maximum of 20 users and 20 build configurations).

Cockerham answered 21/9, 2008 at 13:12 Comment(0)

F

2

We use LuntBuild which works perfectly with maven.

In addition, Lunbuild offers a good deal of granularity for access control. I haven't used too many CI tools, but that was the main reason my company switched to Luntbuild from Cruise Control. We wanted to give clients access to the build server so they could pull daily builds, etc, but we couldn't have them accessing other clients' builds.

Fingerstall answered 21/9, 2008 at 11:7 Comment(0)

Y

2

We use TFS 2008 which works for us because we're pretty much an all MS environment... however, I've also used FinalBuilder, which has more features than just about anything else I've seen and would be especially useful in environments where you were using a mix of technologies (multiple SCM's for example).

Yalta answered 27/9, 2008 at 1:22 Comment(0)

G

1

TFS 2008 is pretty good. It has continuous integration built in to TFS build.

Gigolo answered 21/9, 2008 at 11:9 Comment(0)

G

1

TFS 2008 is pretty good

As are CruiseControl and Nant

Have a look at CI factory, which requires minimal configuration

Gooseflesh answered 21/9, 2008 at 12:54 Comment(0)

Recommended topics

Hot tags