Are there real tangible differences or is it just a matter of taste?
Asked
Active
Viewed 6,518 times
18
-
it depends what you're trying to build and accomplish. You didn't specify project types so I am unclear on your question. I don't see how anyone could give you an honest, un-biased answer without that information. – D3vtr0n Nov 05 '12 at 17:41
9 Answers
20
Getting cruise control setup and maintained takes more time than TeamCity (where you can setup automated project (sln) build in matter of minutes). TeamCity also has a couple of very nice features, such as reporting build failure (via email, jabber, web site) immediately, so you don't have to wait for x minutes.
Version 4 (currently EAP) also has a feature that runs failed tests first, so you know if you fixed the build quickly.
So... my vote goes for teamcity, unless your team is so big you have to pay for it... In that case, I don't know.
bh213
- 6,343
- 9
- 43
- 52
-
2How big is your team? Is it not up to 20 different build configurations, 3 build agents and 20 users? If you go over that (and do not use branching ext (1 main, 1 test and 1 release + a couple of big-change ones) so you need many build configs) I would say that USD 2000 is an OK price to pay – sonstabo Jan 15 '09 at 10:17
-
I disagree. For my CI server I tried both Team City and CC.NET. Team City worked great for our FLEX builds but I could never get them to run our .NET web app builds correctly. CC.NET had it working in five minutes. I prefer the CC.NET XML configuration approach over the Team City Web GUI Wizard. You can edit Team City XML as well, but its not nearly as easy as CC.NET. Since I write a lot of Powershell, it's rather easy to keep a text editor around to make any build changes. I dont have to authenticate and navigate through pages upon pages of Admin junk. – D3vtr0n Nov 05 '12 at 22:41
9
There's a comparison of TeamCity to CruiseControl and CruiseControl.NET on the TeamCity website at http://www.jetbrains.com/teamcity/documentation/featureMatrix.html. It's obviously going to be a bit skewed in favor of TeamCity, but thought it might help anyway.
For me, I had to go with CruiseControl.NET because it supports SourceGear Vault and TeamCity does not.
Michael Paladino
- 800
- 5
- 8
-
3Wow, their Matrix is way off. They must be using CC.NET 1.0 as a guide. Most of those things are in CC.NET now, and those that aren't a few of them are limited to JAVA so who cares. The build grid looks cool, and the gated checkins look cool though – Alex Oct 29 '08 at 14:01
-
I've run into the Vault problem too. CC.NET is the only thing that has Vault support. And SourceGear's support says to supporting things like Hudson or TeamCity is "Write it yourself". http://support.sourcegear.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11156&p=50421&hilit=hudson I would actually recommend Vault to people if SourceGear showed some interest in helping bridge these gaps with other CI's. – slolife Mar 11 '10 at 17:26
-
Team City is nice if you have the extra month required to read the documentation. For me, CC.NET worked, out of the box with little effort and configuration. Maybe I am "old school" but XML Config editing seemed easier than GUI/Wizard/WebPage approach Team City uses. My two cents. – D3vtr0n Nov 05 '12 at 22:37
4
TeamCity is very easy too use and maintain. If you are starting new then use TeamCity.
Sergio Acosta
- 11,418
- 12
- 62
- 91
user33300
- 41
- 1
3
TeamCity's pre-tested or delayed commit can be a nice feature depending on your specific needs.
Ruben
- 9,056
- 6
- 34
- 44
3
I personally am on CC.NET due to the fact that I can customize the heck out of it, we use it for all sorts of things like running Red Stone's EggPlant, Producing Localization Reports, Running UnitTests in many different frameworks and on the 3 OS's using MONO. I really found it easy to set up and was up in less than 5 minutes just doing a simple compile of a single solution. However, I have checked out Team City and it looks cool, I just need the ability to customize.
Alex
- 12,749
- 3
- 31
- 45
-
I personally feel that CC.NET is better for .NET apps. Team City requires a wizard like UI guidance setup which is annoying to navigate. CC.NET is all XML based, with no fancy GUI. But it gets the job done and was much faster to setup in my experiences. If I had the extra time for Team City I would have gone completely in their favor. CC.NET was up and running before I could even figure out Team City's setup. – D3vtr0n Nov 05 '12 at 22:34
1
Team city doesn't have PHP support so its not interesting for me. I think this is a personal choice.
swilliams
- 48,060
- 27
- 100
- 130
Thomaschaaf
- 17,847
- 32
- 94
- 128
