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.
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.
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.
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.