Build and Continuous Integration - Toolgasm achieved

Visual vs. “Executable” Build Configurations

ISerializable - Roy Osherove's Blog — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:37:54 GMT

Dave wrote a really nice overview of how much he liked playing with Rake, the Ruby based build script

re: Build and Continuous Integration - Toolgasm achieved

Adron — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:28:03 GMT

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.

Dew Drop - August 13, 2008 | Alvin Ashcraft's Morning Dew

Dew Drop - August 13, 2008 | Alvin Ashcraft's Morning Dew — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:31:35 GMT

Pingback from Dew Drop - August 13, 2008 | Alvin Ashcraft's Morning Dew

re: Build and Continuous Integration - Toolgasm achieved

Kent Boogaart — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:27:19 GMT

CCNetConfig is a GUI for CC.NET. Will have to check out TeamCity...

re: Build and Continuous Integration - Toolgasm achieved

RoyOsherove — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:26:48 GMT

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.

re: Build and Continuous Integration - Toolgasm achieved

Arielr — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:57:05 GMT

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.

re: Build and Continuous Integration - Toolgasm achieved

Ran Davidovitz — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 04:54:49 GMT

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?

re: Build and Continuous Integration - Toolgasm achieved

RoyOsherove — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:20:17 GMT

Lakshmi:

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.

re: Build and Continuous Integration - Toolgasm achieved

Omer Mor — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:08:08 GMT

Hi Roy,

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?

-- Omer.

re: Build and Continuous Integration - Toolgasm achieved

Lakshmi — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:39:50 GMT

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?

Kindly reply.