On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 10:41:12PM +0000, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: > > Either you're doing it wrong or hudson isn't what you want. > > Rather than flailing around looking for more software fail, why not look > at what the problem might be, whether software or procedural. > > WFM YMMV IANAL.
You are running hudson for < 20 jobs, I am running it for > 200, a scale at which I have to drive it through the groovy console to keep everything in sync (which brings in further hate in the form of poor documentation and a complete lack of tutorial of the api, not to mention having to write groovy code). I think perhaps hudson is not what I want, despite being a big bloated java piece of hate, it doesn't actually give me some of the features I could use to scale things horizontally appropriately. there are certain things I like about it, but managing a hudson of this scale is becoming too big a timesink when I have other things to be doing. /j