I’m also too late for this discussion but just wanted to let you know about my consent. I completely agree with Andreas. I know both CI solutions and Hudson is superior in many areas. To some degree the content of the build (error) messages can be customized in the job configuration “Editable Email Notification”. Build errors caused by the underlying infrastructure will happen with any build system.
By the way, Hudson also incorporates support for many nice code quality plugins visualizing the history/trend of those results. In a separate “doc” job you can for example integrate java doc creation, findbugs, pmd, checkstyle, cobertura, etc – which can also add a lot of value to a project with limited extra configuration effort. I haven’t seen much usage of this in the Apache Hudson installation though. Maybe because many of the Apache projects have been already integrated in http://nemo.sonarsource.org/ with some rule set? Synapse is also present there. Regards, Eric +1 for Hudson. Thanks, Ruwan On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Andreas Veithen <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 19:00, Hiranya Jayathilaka <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 07:31 +0530, Hiranya Jayathilaka wrote: >>> Thanks for your input. My concern is that Hudson reports/notifications >>> sometimes are completely useless. Also recently there have been so >>> many false negatives reported on the list. I was hoping that may be >>> Continuum doesn't suffer these limitations. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Hiranya >>> >>> >> >> We at HttpComponents use both Continuum and Hudson, though, I personally >> find Hudson to be easier to manager and generally better. Both systems >> tend to produce false positives when running low on resources or are >> under heavy load. However in most cases the failures manifested >> themselves as various timeouts (connect / response timeouts) rather any >> particular flaw in the CI system. >> >> The main source of trouble with Hudson for me were frequent failures >> with deploying snapshots to the >> repository.apache.org<http://repository.apache.org>, which, as Andreas >> pointed out, has nothing to do with Hudson as such. > > I see. Thanks Andreas and Oleg for the details. I guess we'll be > sticking with Hudson :) You're welcome. Note that if you have questions about why a particular build has failed or if you would like to improve the configuration of the Synapse jobs, please feel free to ask. BTW: there will be false negatives because repository.apache.org<http://repository.apache.org> again has problems :-(
