Comparison of CI Servers? [closed]

Answer 1

We're using ccnet at work, which is fine for most of our needs (we have about 50 automated builds), but it needs one person for full time tweaking and fixing.

If you're starting from scratch, please take a look at Bamboo. We have looked into it and it looks really promising, but it doesn't completely match our needs and we have invested way too much time in ccnet to switch to Bamboo now.

Regards,

Sebastiaan

Answer 2

Team Foundation Build is an option as well as it interacts very well with Team Foundation Server. It's free as long as long you've licensed TFS.

Answer 3

I inherited a luntbuild server. Not a good option for a .NET project. If you find that you're constantly falling back to using the build server to run generic command line tasks, then something is wrong. A good build server had a good understanding of unit tests output and msbuild tasks as more than opaque commands to be run when the source control system changes.

I'm enjoying migrating to Team City.

Answer 4

We switched from CruiseControl.NET to TeamCity primarily because of ease of configuration. TeamCity also has more features, but the main reason was that a nice Web UI is simpler to use than XML configuration files.

EDIT: Most tasks TeamCity will do out of the box; when necessary we use NAnt.

Answer 5

I'm fairly new to the CI-scene and I've been concentrating my efforts on CruiseControl.NET, using NAnt and Ivy to build my .NET projects.

I've found that CruiseControl.NET is very adaptable to lots of other tools, such as NCover/NUnit/etc. They all plug into this and integrate the results for a combined build process.

I'll be looking into TeamCity in the near future for my own interest, but I think that CruiseControl does a good job, but only as good as your build-scripts! If these are pants, then your builds can only be expected to be that good.

But in summary, CruiseControl.NET is a good solution, but I'm yet to find out how good the competition is in comparison.

Answer 6

I'm a CruiseControl.NET user all the way. My teams uses it at work and I use it at home for personal projects.

In particular, CruiseControl.NET allows me to run through the whole CI process: builds, version update, unit and integration tests, archival of source or release candidate, code coverage, even deployment to our test system at work. It's highly customizable, works well with MSBuild and NAnt, and even had an extensible plug-in architecture.

It pretty much does everything I need.

The biggest disadvantage: configuration is sometimes a pain, and can take time. But once it's done, it's done, and as another poster said, I love seeing the "successful build" signal because I know that not only did the build itself work, but that also that my unit and integration tests all ran successfully.