Funny you should ask this question - I need to answer this question for my current client. There are actually 4 continuous integration products associated with thoughtworks that feature the word 'cruise'. It seems that this fact can cause a great deal of confusion - they are all similar in concept but completely different in implementation.
http://ccnet.thoughtworks.com - The open source .net implementation that you all know and love (ideally suited for building .net projects) http://cruisecontrol.sourceforge.net - The original open source java implementation that started it all (ideally suited for building java projects) http://cruisecontrolrb.thoughtworks.com - A more recent open source ruby implementation (ideally suited for building ruby projects) http://studios.thoughtworks.com/cruise-continuous-integration - A commercial continuous integration tool that was released last year There main features of the commercial version of cruise are here: http://studios.thoughtworks.com/cruise-continuous-integration/features-and-benefits I'd suggest that you ask your coworkers to demonstrate their perceived benefit of using cruise (the specific problems that will be solved by using it instead of the open source version). There are a great many things that you can do with the commercial version that would require a lot of effort using the open source versions (build pipelines, parallellisation, testing on multiple platforms etc.). The question is whether your team would benefit from doing any of those things. Mark. On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 9:20 AM, SMS <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, > > I have been using CCNET for more than 3 years now. I have been pretty > satisfied with how it works. > I just got to know about from Cruise (again by ThoughtWorks). > What is the exact difference between these two products? > Why should I stick to CCNet when Cruise has come out in market? > > I need some substantial answers since I got answer to my c-workers who > have been insisting that we should start using Cruise instead of > CCNet. > > Thanks.
