用于 Java 项目的 Hudson 和 CruiseControl 有什么区别?

我认为标题总结了这一点.我只是想知道为什么其中一个更适合 Svn 的 Java 项目的持续集成构建.

解决方案

作为一个长期的 CruiseControl 提交者和一个从未使用过 Hudson 的人，我很偏颇，但我的看法是:

Hudson 更容易启动和运行(很大程度上来自一个漂亮的网络界面)，并且拥有一个非常活跃的插件开发社区.

CruiseControl 得到了许多 第三方资料 的支持，并具有以下优势使用 xml 配置做一些巧妙的技巧，例如插件预配置和 include.projects，它可以让您使用项目对配置信息进行版本控制.

如果您只打算进行一些构建，我认为 Hudson 是明显的赢家.如果你有很多——而且不介意 xml——那么我认为 CruiseControl 的 xml 配置技巧会成为一种真正的优势.

I think the title sums it up. I just want to know why one or the other is better for continous integration builds of Java projects from Svn.

解决方案

As a long time CruiseControl committer and someone who has never used Hudson I'm pretty biased, but my take on it is:

Hudson is much easier to get up and running (in large part from a nice web interface) and has a very active plugin development community.

CruiseControl has support from lots of 3rd party stuff and has the benefit of doing some neat tricks with the xml configuration like plugin preconfiguration and include.projects which lets you version the configuration information with the project.

If you're only going to have a few builds I think Hudson is the clear winner. If you're going to have lots -- and don't mind the xml -- then I think CruiseControl's xml configuration tricks become a real strength.