I think the title sums it up. I just want to know why one or the other is better for continous integration builds of Java projects from Svn.
views:
5321answers:
7
+16
A:
My last project, we started off on CruiseControl. Which rocked. Then we moved to Hudson, which rocked even more. The things I liked about Hudson:
The upstream and downstream projects. So a commit to your data access code will eventually also trigger a build of the presentation layer.
Easily use an existing project as the starting point of a new one - so if you are in the habit of creating development branches, then making sure these are under continuous integration is a snap.
toolkit
2009-03-02 22:55:15
+1, totally agree, especially about the second point. We've ended up using Hudson for a lot of stuff because of that (more about it: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/604385/what-is-the-difference-between-hudson-and-cruisecontrol-for-java-projects/888054#888054)
Jonik
2009-05-20 13:58:59
+2
A:
Hudson is the more user-friendly alternative in my opinion. It can be set up and maintained completely via the web interface (apart from the initial installation of the webapp, of course).
The only way this could be said about CruiseControl is if you count the built-in XML file editor.
Still, having used both, I'd still prefer any one over having no automated build.
Joachim Sauer
2009-03-02 23:07:01
+4
A:
I looked at both Cruise Control and Hudson but choose Hudson as it was much easier to setup and configure. Hudson seems very widely used these days with regular releases and lots of extensiblity through plugins. I would highly recommend it.
Mark
2009-03-02 23:08:40
+6
A:
As a long time CruiseControl committer and someone who has never used Hudson I'm pretty biased, but my take on it is:
Hudson is much easier to get up and running (in large part from a nice web interface) and has a very active plugin development community.
CruiseControl has support from lots of 3rd party stuff and has the benefit of doing some neat tricks with the xml configuration like plugin preconfiguration and include.projects which lets you version the configuration information with the project.
If you're only going to have a few builds I think Hudson is the clear winner. If you're going to have lots -- and don't mind the xml -- then I think CruiseControl's xml configuration tricks become a real strength.
Jeffrey Fredrick
2009-03-03 07:41:21
+22
A:
I agree with this answer, but wanted to add a few points.
In short, Hudson is likely the better choice now. First and foremost because creating and configuring jobs ("projects" in CC vocabulary) is just so much faster through Hudson's web UI, compared to editing CruiseControl's XML configuration file (which we used to keep in version control just to keep track of it better). The latter is not especially difficult - it simply is slower and more tedious.
CruiseControl has been great, but as noted in Dan Dyer's aptly-named blog post, Why are you still not using Hudson?, it suffers from being first. (Um, like Britain, if you will, later into the industrial revolution, when others started overtaking it with newer technologies.)
We used CruiseControl heavily and have gradually switched over to Hudson, finally using it exclusively. And even more heavily: in the process we've started using the CI server for many other things than before, because setting up and managing Hudson jobs is so handy. (We now have some 40+ jobs in Hudson: the usual build & test jobs for stable and development branches; jobs related to releasing (building installers etc); jobs that run some (experimental) metrics against the codebase; ones that run (slow) UI or integration tests against a specific database version; and so on.)
From this experience I'd argue that even if you have lots of builds, including complicated ones, Hudson is a pretty safe choice because, like CC, you can use it to do anything, basically. Just configure your job to run whatever Ant or Maven targets, Unix shell scripts, or Windows .bat scripts, in the order you wish.
As for the 3rd party stuff (mentioned here by Jeffrey Fredrick) - that is a good point, but my impression is that Hudson is quickly catching up, and that there's already a very large number of plugins available for it.
For me, the two things I can name that I miss about CruiseControl are:
- Its warning emails about broken builds were more informative than those of Hudson. In most cases the root cause was evident from CC's nicely formatted HTML mail itself, whereas with Hudson I usually need to follow the link to Hudson web UI, and click around a little to get the details.
- The CruiseControl dashboard is better suited, out of the box, as an "information radiator" (shown on a public monitor, or projected on a wall, so that you can always quickly see the status of all projects). With Hudson's front page, we needed some Greasemonkey tricks to get job rows all nicely green/red.
Minor disclaimer: I haven't been following the CC project closely for the last year or so. (But from a quick look, it has not changed in any dramatic way.)
Jonik
2009-05-20 13:55:14