Hudson continuous integration: technical and social

Linked on Sep 23 at 6:05

Reinout van Rees’ speaks of how much more visible and enjoyable continuous integration in his office became after he switched from buildbot to Hudson. As a fan of buildbot (lightweight, flexible, easy to set up), I’m skeptical. However, one idea in the article caught my attention. Van Rees’ mentions that enthusiasm increased when they displayed their continuous integration results in a “visible location in [the] development room.” That is such a fantastic idea, I’m going to ask that we consider it at tomorrow morning’s scrum.

  1. Reinout van Rees

    September 23, 2010 at 6:02 pm

    All you need is an old computer :-) Just show your buildbot overview page of choice and see whether it has an effect.

    I too liked buildbot. I even worked on a buildout buildbot recipe. What won me over to Hudson were the extra graphs you could get. Buildbot “only” shows test results. With Hudson you can get code coverage graphs and code neatness graphs, too.

    That said, I had buildbot configured to run the coverage stuff anyway and generate the coverage reports somewhere. I also had it generate the documentation on every build and the first line in the documentation pointed at the online generated coverage reports! I also generated a dependency graph (so: requirements) and injected it into the generated documentation. So: agreed that you can have fun with buildbot, too :-)

Leave a Reply