When I taught source control and continuous integration in 2007 (for the GS04 course at UCL) I used Subversion for the source control lab and build-o-matic for the continuous integration lab.
In the labs this year, I'll be using Mercurial instead of Subversion, and Hudson instead of build-o-matic.
What would you choose for teaching source control and continuous integration (and for bonus marks, why)?
Copyright © 2009 Ivan Moore
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Visual Source Safe and Control M ?
I'd go with Git and TeamCity.
I'd go with Git, TeamCity and IntelliJ because it shows what is achieved by the the tight integration of state-of-the-art tools. The TeamCity/IntelliJ integration especially is excellent.
(Comment from Mike Hogan, posted on his behalf by me):
For your audience, I would stick with subversion. I found that
subversion made it easy to explain source code control to a beginner
audience. Why? Because its file and directory based, and kinda does what
you would do yourself if you managing your versions by hand. I found this lack of magic made it easier to focus on communicating the
princplies of scc.
As regards CI tool, I looked at both TeamCity and Hudson, but chose the
former, purely because of Piazza :-) I wanted to make the point that a CI tool is useful only to the degree that build breakages are
communicated quickly and effectively to the team, and a big in-your-face
monitor that goes red is hard to beat. I'm sure its possible to do this with Hudson, but I didn't find an out-of-the-box way of doing it after spending all of 10 minutes looking, so I went with TC and Piazza.
Post a Comment