Have you looked at Hudson? I've used it on .Net projects with a lot of success even though its a somewhat Java centric tool. It supports subversion and has an active and diverse plugin community which enables it to work with a lot of different languages. Its open source and it runs on many platforms.I found it to be relatively easy to configure and manage.
自从离开 buildbot 以来，我一直在使用 Cruisecontrol，并且在某种程度上我对它很满意。 我当前的项目包括构建 c++ 和 ruby（带有一些 c 扩展）支持多种架构，唯一的抱怨是大多数功能确实需要 ant。 目前 cc 的单个实例正在构建大约 40 个不同的项目。我们的构建阶段包括运行单元测试、一些功能测试、获取代码覆盖率并制作报告、更新包数据库、irc 集成、软件包创建和存储库更新（debian）
唯一的抱怨是，大多数更高级的功能都需要（至少在 cc 构建循环内）使用 ant 进行构建。
我也评测过hudson，似乎比cruisecontrol灵活一些，但我个人不太喜欢它的配置界面。
Since moving away from buildbot i've been using cruisecontrol and i've been happy with it to certain degree. My current projects consist of building c++ & ruby (with some c extensions) to multiple architectures and and only gripe with is that most features do require ant. And currently single instance of cc is building roughly 40 different projects.. Build phases we have do consist of running unittests, some functional tests, getting code coverage and making a report of those, updating package database, irc integration, software packaqge creation and repository update (debian)
Only gripe is that most of the fancier features would require that (Atleast when inside cc build loop) build is happening with ant.
I've also evaluated hudson, it seems to be somewhat more flexible than cruisecontrol but i dont personally like the configuration interface of it.
CruiseControl or Hudson are both pretty good open source CI tools. I find CC really easy to customize and extend and there are lot of plugins that have been added over its 8 year lifetime. Hudson is newer and easier for most people to get started; it is dead simple to get your first project running using the GUI configuration while CC requires mucking about in XML files. Hudson also has an active plugin community and is rapidly adding new capabilities.
However depending on the complexity and requirements of your projects you might find a commercial tool like AnthillPro would be a better fit. The reasons upgrade from CC or Hudson to AHP vary from company to company but some typical answers include the ability to setup self-service deployments with access control by environment, the desire to chain multiple builds/workflows together, the built in dependency management, the artifact repository, or the ability to pull together data from a bunch of different tools & builds across the lifecycle.
Not everyone needs those capabilities but the people who do find the upgrade to be worth the money.
发布评论
评论（5）
查看 TeamCity。 对我们来说就像一个魅力。
Take a look at TeamCity. Works like a charm for us.
您看过Hudson吗？ 我已经在 .Net 项目中使用它并取得了很大的成功，尽管它在某种程度上是一个以 Java 为中心的工具。 它支持 subversion 并拥有活跃且多样化的插件社区，使其能够使用许多不同的语言。 它是开源的，可以在许多平台上运行。我发现它相对容易配置和管理。
Have you looked at Hudson? I've used it on .Net projects with a lot of success even though its a somewhat Java centric tool. It supports subversion and has an active and diverse plugin community which enables it to work with a lot of different languages. Its open source and it runs on many platforms.I found it to be relatively easy to configure and manage.
自从离开 buildbot 以来，我一直在使用 Cruisecontrol，并且在某种程度上我对它很满意。 我当前的项目包括构建 c++ 和 ruby（带有一些 c 扩展）支持多种架构，唯一的抱怨是大多数功能确实需要 ant。 目前 cc 的单个实例正在构建大约 40 个不同的项目。我们的构建阶段包括运行单元测试、一些功能测试、获取代码覆盖率并制作报告、更新包数据库、irc 集成、软件包创建和存储库更新（debian）
唯一的抱怨是，大多数更高级的功能都需要（至少在 cc 构建循环内）使用 ant 进行构建。
我也评测过hudson，似乎比cruisecontrol灵活一些，但我个人不太喜欢它的配置界面。
Since moving away from buildbot i've been using cruisecontrol and i've been happy with it to certain degree. My current projects consist of building c++ & ruby (with some c extensions) to multiple architectures and and only gripe with is that most features do require ant. And currently single instance of cc is building roughly 40 different projects.. Build phases we have do consist of running unittests, some functional tests, getting code coverage and making a report of those, updating package database, irc integration, software packaqge creation and repository update (debian)
Only gripe is that most of the fancier features would require that (Atleast when inside cc build loop) build is happening with ant.
I've also evaluated hudson, it seems to be somewhat more flexible than cruisecontrol but i dont personally like the configuration interface of it.
我是 CruiseControl 的开发人员，我为 Urbancode 工作，制作 AnthillPro，所以我可以谈谈这些的优点。 我也是 CITCON 的组织者之一，所以我对几乎该空间中的所有产品。
CruiseControl 或 Hudson 都是非常好的开源 CI 工具。 我发现 CC 非常容易定制和扩展，并且在其 8 年的生命周期中添加了很多插件。 Hudson 比较新，对于大多数人来说更容易上手； 使用 GUI 配置运行您的第一个项目非常简单，而 CC 需要处理 XML 文件。 Hudson 还拥有一个活跃的插件社区，并且正在快速添加新功能。
然而，根据项目的复杂性和要求，您可能会发现像 AnthillPro 这样的商业工具更适合。 从 CC 或 Hudson 升级到 AHP 的原因因公司而异，但一些典型的答案包括设置具有环境访问控制的自助服务部署的能力、将多个构建/工作流程链接在一起的愿望、内置的依赖关系管理、工件存储库，或者从一堆不同工具中提取数据的能力 & 跨生命周期构建。
并非每个人都需要这些功能，但确实认为升级值得花钱的人。
I'm a developer on CruiseControl and I work for Urbancode who makes AnthillPro, so I can speak to the strengths of those. I'm also one of the organizers of CITCON so I'm pretty familiar with almost all the offerings in the space.
CruiseControl or Hudson are both pretty good open source CI tools. I find CC really easy to customize and extend and there are lot of plugins that have been added over its 8 year lifetime. Hudson is newer and easier for most people to get started; it is dead simple to get your first project running using the GUI configuration while CC requires mucking about in XML files. Hudson also has an active plugin community and is rapidly adding new capabilities.
However depending on the complexity and requirements of your projects you might find a commercial tool like AnthillPro would be a better fit. The reasons upgrade from CC or Hudson to AHP vary from company to company but some typical answers include the ability to setup self-service deployments with access control by environment, the desire to chain multiple builds/workflows together, the built in dependency management, the artifact repository, or the ability to pull together data from a bunch of different tools & builds across the lifecycle.
Not everyone needs those capabilities but the people who do find the upgrade to be worth the money.
为什么不看看 CI Factory。
Why not also take a look at CI Factory.