On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 12:25 PM, arun <[email protected]> wrote: > > So, to the original question, I guess what I want to ensure is that > what gets deployed is exactly the same code as has been built / > tested. Even if I wasn't chaining it to CruiseControl, I would think > that this would still be a concern as I would want to be sure that I > deployed the exact code that I tested locally and avoid the > possibility that someone had slipped in a commit while I was building. >
Arun, thinking about this a little more, after Lee's responses. Maybe it makes more sense to tag/label the files in SCM and let CruiseControl/Hudson deal with the steps in the build/test/deploy process? I'd think it's still reasonable to use Cap as a way to kick off remote process.. but use the build server to "chain" the events? -- * You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Capistrano" group. * To post to this group, send email to [email protected] * To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/capistrano?hl=en
