we are using Cruise control system for automated hourly builds.. and pretty good with that.
is there any disadvantage you saw in CC.net which is achieved by other CI systems?
I have a big standing issue with finalbuilder's output. I have not found a way to transform it nicely to something I can show on our CI build page (we use ccnet).
Do you have a clever way to make its output prettier than a long textual nightmare?
TeamCity has a pre-tested commit ability which ccnet does not have. also, I don't need to work with XML to configure the CI.
Omer Mor :
Nope. That is one of the reasons I don't like CCnet. TeamCity shows the status really nicely.
I personally like the more core oriented sequencer like msbuild / nant.
What were your problems with MSBUILD? (is it only the GUI that makes the difference)
About the output - its Nice output BUT that's only HTML - what all the fuss?
Why would you clean the build environment at the end of a build and not at the start of the next?
This way you can run forensices on failing build process.
arielr: the clean at the end is only to remove things from the gac and such that were needed for integration tests. We don't delete the files. only at the start of the build we delete the directory.
Ran: My main problem is maintainability. an XML file is OK after a month to maintain, but after a few months your build process can get complicated enough that it is really hard work to change even small details in it, or teach someone how it works.
CCNetConfig is a GUI for CC.NET. Will have to check out TeamCity...
I too, absolutely dig the CI from TeamCity/JetBrains.
Check out my blog for my entries too, I've written up a couple steps, at a super easy level just show what can be and is being done.