Re: Best CI Server for Git?

From: Tim Visher <tim.visher@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 4, 2009, 19:23 UTC
Message-ID: <c115fd3c0902041123j4a16d666r6d1fbb9917184b2a@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1c5969370902021642v4e8d93djd22d5caa4aa9d1a9@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Matt Graham <mdg149@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hudson leaves a fair amount to be implemented by plug-ins, so not
> being installed out of the box doesn't really imply bad.  I would say
> that there are more significant differences between Hudson and Cruise
> Control than how they integrate with Git.

Makes sense.

> We are currently switching from Cruise Control to Hudson for reasons
> related to ease of use.

Would you mind being a little more specific? The basics of what I've heard is that Cruise Control is ultimately much more flexible and capable, but that Hudson beats it hands down regarding usability and UI. What specific issues had your team come up against?

> Here is another hudson/git plugin.  It may not be quite as official
> but addresses issues people have had with the more official one:
> http://github.com/stephenh/hudson-git2

I remember when this was announced. Unfortunately, I can't find a clear comparison of the two. I heard in a recent thread on here that at least some of the problems being answered by hudson-git2 have been cleaned up in the latest version of the official plug-in. Is it still the case that there are problems in the official one that are fixed in Stephen's?

Thanks so much for your help! :)

-- 
In Christ,

Timmy V.

http://burningones.com/
http://five.sentenc.es/ - Spend less time on e-mail