Continuum, Cruise Control and Hudson are some of the famous continuous integration tools which people are using nowadays. Cruise Control is the pioneer one and people are using from a long period of time. Continuum is from the Maven team and very high integration with Maven 1 and 2. Hudson is the new one but it is more popular now.
Comparing TWO continuous build tools: Cruise Control and Hudson
Published May 10, 2008 Continous Integration Servers , Cruise Control , hudson 8 Comments
8 Responses to “Comparing TWO continuous build tools: Cruise Control and Hudson”
- 1 Trackback on September 5, 2008 at 5:13 pm
While i appreciate your attempt at a comparison and for the most part you do a good job, the one problem i have with it, is you can tell in your comparisons you favour Hudson.
For a few of them you have a detailed level for the Hudson, but then CC is just “does it as well” or “no idea”
You can do as you’d please but a fairer comparison would make for a better entry imho.
Good info here nonetheless
Can we incorparate hudson in existing machines with out affecting current Projects..Please send me the details to sharp859@gmail.com
Very interesting. Have you done any comparison and/or like what features we are missing from BuildForge? I mean leave the cost benefits..just product stand point of view
Friend,
A very good piece of work, this comparision has simplified my work.
But as mentioned by Joseph you should have been using Hudson for long years, so with your knowledge you would have writeen a little Hudson biased comparision.
There is very nice article comparing most popular CI tools
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-11-2006/jw-1101-ci.html
Did you compare with respect to inter project dependencies? In most of companies, there are multiple projects with common/shared projects.
Does any of you know if I can accomplish the following using CC ?
I have set up a schedule time for my project to perform a nightly checkout and build. Now, I need to see a mail after each build which lists the users who have checked in code after the prev nightly build and the files they have checked in.
TIA
~v
I always devour user comparisons of Products, however, I don’t think your comparison was fair, nor complete.
We have been using CC for many years AND through many pains.
That being said, it does the job and it does it well.
However, I am excited by Hudson. I saw a comprehensive demo by a collegue. It blew me away. That demo was many months ago, and I have no intent on migrating to Hudson until I can analyze if it can do the job CC is currently doing.
One other issue I have with your comparison is that you focused entirely on the tools only building Java projects.
We use CC to build not only Java projects, but also DVD assembly builds, and L10N/i18n projects. We also CC to compile binary modules, and also create MSI files.
Don’t get wrong, I am a GUI guy, and Hudson IS flashy, but that will not make me drop CC,…at least not yet, and not until I can intelligently compare the two products.