Alternatives to Codeship logo

Alternatives to Codeship

CircleCI, Semaphore, Jenkins, Shippable, and Codefresh are the most popular alternatives and competitors to Codeship.
1K
733
+ 1
1.5K

What is Codeship and what are its top alternatives?

Codeship runs your automated tests and configured deployment when you push to your repository. It takes care of managing and scaling the infrastructure so that you are able to test and release more frequently and get faster feedback for building the product your users need.
Codeship is a tool in the Continuous Integration category of a tech stack.

Top Alternatives to Codeship

  • CircleCI
    CircleCI

    Continuous integration and delivery platform helps software teams rapidly release code with confidence by automating the build, test, and deploy process. Offers a modern software development platform that lets teams ramp. ...

  • Semaphore
    Semaphore

    Semaphore is the fastest continuous integration and delivery (CI/CD) platform on the market, powering the world’s best engineering teams. ...

  • Jenkins
    Jenkins

    In a nutshell Jenkins CI is the leading open-source continuous integration server. Built with Java, it provides over 300 plugins to support building and testing virtually any project. ...

  • Shippable
    Shippable

    Shippable is a SaaS platform that lets you easily add Continuous Integration/Deployment to your Github and BitBucket repositories. It is lightweight, super simple to setup, and runs your builds and tests faster than any other service. ...

  • Codefresh
    Codefresh

    Automate and parallelize testing. Codefresh allows teams to spin up on-demand compositions to run unit and integration tests as part of the continuous integration process. Jenkins integration allows more complex pipelines. ...

  • GitLab
    GitLab

    GitLab offers git repository management, code reviews, issue tracking, activity feeds and wikis. Enterprises install GitLab on-premise and connect it with LDAP and Active Directory servers for secure authentication and authorization. A single GitLab server can handle more than 25,000 users but it is also possible to create a high availability setup with multiple active servers. ...

  • Travis CI
    Travis CI

    Free for open source projects, our CI environment provides multiple runtimes (e.g. Node.js or PHP versions), data stores and so on. Because of this, hosting your project on travis-ci.com means you can effortlessly test your library or applications against multiple runtimes and data stores without even having all of them installed locally. ...

  • Bamboo
    Bamboo

    Focus on coding and count on Bamboo as your CI and build server! Create multi-stage build plans, set up triggers to start builds upon commits, and assign agents to your critical builds and deployments. ...

Codeship alternatives & related posts

CircleCI logo

CircleCI

9K
6.4K
962
Automate your development process quickly, safely, and at scale
9K
6.4K
+ 1
962
PROS OF CIRCLECI
  • 224
    Github integration
  • 176
    Easy setup
  • 152
    Fast builds
  • 94
    Competitively priced
  • 74
    Slack integration
  • 54
    Docker support
  • 44
    Awesome UI
  • 33
    Great customer support
  • 18
    Ios support
  • 14
    Hipchat integration
  • 13
    SSH debug access
  • 11
    Free for Open Source
  • 5
    Bitbucket integration
  • 5
    Mobile support
  • 4
    Nodejs support
  • 4
    AWS CodeDeploy integration
  • 3
    Great support
  • 3
    Free for Github private repo
  • 3
    YAML configuration
  • 2
    Clojurescript
  • 2
    OSX support
  • 2
    Continuous Deployment
  • 2
    Simple, clean UI
  • 2
    Clojure
  • 1
    Unstable
  • 1
    Favorite
  • 1
    Helpful documentation
  • 1
    Autoscaling
  • 1
    Extremely configurable
  • 1
    Works
  • 1
    Android support
  • 1
    Fair pricing
  • 1
    All inclusive testing
  • 1
    Japanese in rspec comment appears OK
  • 1
    Build PR Branch Only
  • 1
    So circular
  • 1
    Easy setup, easy to understand, fast and reliable
  • 1
    Parallel builds for slow test suites
  • 1
    Easy setup. 2.0 is fast!
  • 1
    Parallelism
  • 1
    Easy to deploy to private servers
  • 1
    Really easy to use
  • 0
    Stable
CONS OF CIRCLECI
  • 12
    Unstable
  • 6
    Scammy pricing structure
  • 0
    Aggressive Github permissions

related CircleCI posts

Tymoteusz Paul
Devops guy at X20X Development LTD · | 23 upvotes · 5.5M views

Often enough I have to explain my way of going about setting up a CI/CD pipeline with multiple deployment platforms. Since I am a bit tired of yapping the same every single time, I've decided to write it up and share with the world this way, and send people to read it instead ;). I will explain it on "live-example" of how the Rome got built, basing that current methodology exists only of readme.md and wishes of good luck (as it usually is ;)).

It always starts with an app, whatever it may be and reading the readmes available while Vagrant and VirtualBox is installing and updating. Following that is the first hurdle to go over - convert all the instruction/scripts into Ansible playbook(s), and only stopping when doing a clear vagrant up or vagrant reload we will have a fully working environment. As our Vagrant environment is now functional, it's time to break it! This is the moment to look for how things can be done better (too rigid/too lose versioning? Sloppy environment setup?) and replace them with the right way to do stuff, one that won't bite us in the backside. This is the point, and the best opportunity, to upcycle the existing way of doing dev environment to produce a proper, production-grade product.

I should probably digress here for a moment and explain why. I firmly believe that the way you deploy production is the same way you should deploy develop, shy of few debugging-friendly setting. This way you avoid the discrepancy between how production work vs how development works, which almost always causes major pains in the back of the neck, and with use of proper tools should mean no more work for the developers. That's why we start with Vagrant as developer boxes should be as easy as vagrant up, but the meat of our product lies in Ansible which will do meat of the work and can be applied to almost anything: AWS, bare metal, docker, LXC, in open net, behind vpn - you name it.

We must also give proper consideration to monitoring and logging hoovering at this point. My generic answer here is to grab Elasticsearch, Kibana, and Logstash. While for different use cases there may be better solutions, this one is well battle-tested, performs reasonably and is very easy to scale both vertically (within some limits) and horizontally. Logstash rules are easy to write and are well supported in maintenance through Ansible, which as I've mentioned earlier, are at the very core of things, and creating triggers/reports and alerts based on Elastic and Kibana is generally a breeze, including some quite complex aggregations.

If we are happy with the state of the Ansible it's time to move on and put all those roles and playbooks to work. Namely, we need something to manage our CI/CD pipelines. For me, the choice is obvious: TeamCity. It's modern, robust and unlike most of the light-weight alternatives, it's transparent. What I mean by that is that it doesn't tell you how to do things, doesn't limit your ways to deploy, or test, or package for that matter. Instead, it provides a developer-friendly and rich playground for your pipelines. You can do most the same with Jenkins, but it has a quite dated look and feel to it, while also missing some key functionality that must be brought in via plugins (like quality REST API which comes built-in with TeamCity). It also comes with all the common-handy plugins like Slack or Apache Maven integration.

The exact flow between CI and CD varies too greatly from one application to another to describe, so I will outline a few rules that guide me in it: 1. Make build steps as small as possible. This way when something breaks, we know exactly where, without needing to dig and root around. 2. All security credentials besides development environment must be sources from individual Vault instances. Keys to those containers should exist only on the CI/CD box and accessible by a few people (the less the better). This is pretty self-explanatory, as anything besides dev may contain sensitive data and, at times, be public-facing. Because of that appropriate security must be present. TeamCity shines in this department with excellent secrets-management. 3. Every part of the build chain shall consume and produce artifacts. If it creates nothing, it likely shouldn't be its own build. This way if any issue shows up with any environment or version, all developer has to do it is grab appropriate artifacts to reproduce the issue locally. 4. Deployment builds should be directly tied to specific Git branches/tags. This enables much easier tracking of what caused an issue, including automated identifying and tagging the author (nothing like automated regression testing!).

Speaking of deployments, I generally try to keep it simple but also with a close eye on the wallet. Because of that, I am more than happy with AWS or another cloud provider, but also constantly peeking at the loads and do we get the value of what we are paying for. Often enough the pattern of use is not constantly erratic, but rather has a firm baseline which could be migrated away from the cloud and into bare metal boxes. That is another part where this approach strongly triumphs over the common Docker and CircleCI setup, where you are very much tied in to use cloud providers and getting out is expensive. Here to embrace bare-metal hosting all you need is a help of some container-based self-hosting software, my personal preference is with Proxmox and LXC. Following that all you must write are ansible scripts to manage hardware of Proxmox, similar way as you do for Amazon EC2 (ansible supports both greatly) and you are good to go. One does not exclude another, quite the opposite, as they can live in great synergy and cut your costs dramatically (the heavier your base load, the bigger the savings) while providing production-grade resiliency.

See more
Tim Abbott
Shared insights
on
Travis CITravis CICircleCICircleCI
at

We actually started out on Travis CI, but we've migrated our main builds to CircleCI, and it's been a huge improvement.

The reason it's been a huge improvement is that Travis CI has a fundamentally bad design for their images, where they start with a standard base Linux image containing tons of packages (several versions of postgres, every programming language environment, etc). This is potentially nice for the "get builds for a small project running quickly" use case, but it's a total disaster for a larger project that needs a decent number of dependencies and cares about the performance and reliability of their build.

This issue is exacerbated by their networking infrastructure being unreliable; we usually saw over 1% of builds failing due to transient networking errors in Travis CI, even after we added retries to the most frequently failing operations like apt update or pip install. And they never install Ubuntu's point release updates to their images. So doing an apt update, apt install, or especially apt upgrade would take forever. We ended up writing code to actually uninstall many of their base packages and pin the versions of hundreds of others to get a semi-fast, semi-reliable build. It was infuriating.

The CircleCI v2.0 system has the right design for a CI system: we can customize the base image to start with any expensive-to-install packages we need for our build, and we can update that image if and when we want to. The end result is that when migrating, we were able to delete all the hacky optimizations mentioned above, while still ending up with a 50% faster build latency. And we've also had 5-10x fewer issues with networking-related flakes, which means one doesn't have to constantly check whether a build failure is actually due to an issue with the code under test or "just another networking flake".

See more
Semaphore logo

Semaphore

185
167
83
The continuous integration and delivery platform powering the world’s best engineering teams
185
167
+ 1
83
PROS OF SEMAPHORE
  • 20
    Easy setup
  • 15
    Fast builds
  • 14
    Free for private github repos
  • 8
    Great customer support
  • 6
    Free for open source
  • 5
    Organizations ready
  • 4
    Slack integration
  • 2
    SSH debug access
  • 2
    GitHub Integration
  • 1
    Easy to use
  • 1
    Continuous Deployment
  • 1
    Pipeline builder GUI
  • 1
    BitBucket integration
  • 1
    Docker support
  • 1
    Simple UI
  • 1
    Parallelism
CONS OF SEMAPHORE
    Be the first to leave a con

    related Semaphore posts

    Jenkins logo

    Jenkins

    51.7K
    43.9K
    2.2K
    An extendable open source continuous integration server
    51.7K
    43.9K
    + 1
    2.2K
    PROS OF JENKINS
    • 521
      Hosted internally
    • 464
      Free open source
    • 315
      Great to build, deploy or launch anything async
    • 243
      Tons of integrations
    • 210
      Rich set of plugins with good documentation
    • 110
      Has support for build pipelines
    • 72
      Open source and tons of integrations
    • 65
      Easy setup
    • 62
      It is open-source
    • 54
      Workflow plugin
    • 11
      Configuration as code
    • 10
      Very powerful tool
    • 9
      Continuous Integration
    • 9
      Many Plugins
    • 8
      Git and Maven integration is better
    • 8
      Great flexibility
    • 7
      100% free and open source
    • 6
      Github integration
    • 6
      Slack Integration (plugin)
    • 5
      Easy customisation
    • 5
      Self-hosted GitLab Integration (plugin)
    • 4
      Docker support
    • 4
      Pipeline API
    • 3
      Platform idnependency
    • 3
      Excellent docker integration
    • 3
      Fast builds
    • 3
      Hosted Externally
    • 2
      Customizable
    • 2
      AWS Integration
    • 2
      It's Everywhere
    • 2
      JOBDSL
    • 2
      Can be run as a Docker container
    • 2
      It`w worked
    • 1
      Easily extendable with seamless integration
    • 1
      Build PR Branch Only
    • 1
      NodeJS Support
    • 1
      PHP Support
    • 1
      Ruby/Rails Support
    • 1
      Universal controller
    • 1
      Loose Coupling
    CONS OF JENKINS
    • 12
      Workarounds needed for basic requirements
    • 9
      Groovy with cumbersome syntax
    • 7
      Plugins compatibility issues
    • 6
      Lack of support
    • 6
      Limited abilities with declarative pipelines
    • 4
      No YAML syntax
    • 3
      Too tied to plugins versions

    related Jenkins posts

    Tymoteusz Paul
    Devops guy at X20X Development LTD · | 23 upvotes · 5.5M views

    Often enough I have to explain my way of going about setting up a CI/CD pipeline with multiple deployment platforms. Since I am a bit tired of yapping the same every single time, I've decided to write it up and share with the world this way, and send people to read it instead ;). I will explain it on "live-example" of how the Rome got built, basing that current methodology exists only of readme.md and wishes of good luck (as it usually is ;)).

    It always starts with an app, whatever it may be and reading the readmes available while Vagrant and VirtualBox is installing and updating. Following that is the first hurdle to go over - convert all the instruction/scripts into Ansible playbook(s), and only stopping when doing a clear vagrant up or vagrant reload we will have a fully working environment. As our Vagrant environment is now functional, it's time to break it! This is the moment to look for how things can be done better (too rigid/too lose versioning? Sloppy environment setup?) and replace them with the right way to do stuff, one that won't bite us in the backside. This is the point, and the best opportunity, to upcycle the existing way of doing dev environment to produce a proper, production-grade product.

    I should probably digress here for a moment and explain why. I firmly believe that the way you deploy production is the same way you should deploy develop, shy of few debugging-friendly setting. This way you avoid the discrepancy between how production work vs how development works, which almost always causes major pains in the back of the neck, and with use of proper tools should mean no more work for the developers. That's why we start with Vagrant as developer boxes should be as easy as vagrant up, but the meat of our product lies in Ansible which will do meat of the work and can be applied to almost anything: AWS, bare metal, docker, LXC, in open net, behind vpn - you name it.

    We must also give proper consideration to monitoring and logging hoovering at this point. My generic answer here is to grab Elasticsearch, Kibana, and Logstash. While for different use cases there may be better solutions, this one is well battle-tested, performs reasonably and is very easy to scale both vertically (within some limits) and horizontally. Logstash rules are easy to write and are well supported in maintenance through Ansible, which as I've mentioned earlier, are at the very core of things, and creating triggers/reports and alerts based on Elastic and Kibana is generally a breeze, including some quite complex aggregations.

    If we are happy with the state of the Ansible it's time to move on and put all those roles and playbooks to work. Namely, we need something to manage our CI/CD pipelines. For me, the choice is obvious: TeamCity. It's modern, robust and unlike most of the light-weight alternatives, it's transparent. What I mean by that is that it doesn't tell you how to do things, doesn't limit your ways to deploy, or test, or package for that matter. Instead, it provides a developer-friendly and rich playground for your pipelines. You can do most the same with Jenkins, but it has a quite dated look and feel to it, while also missing some key functionality that must be brought in via plugins (like quality REST API which comes built-in with TeamCity). It also comes with all the common-handy plugins like Slack or Apache Maven integration.

    The exact flow between CI and CD varies too greatly from one application to another to describe, so I will outline a few rules that guide me in it: 1. Make build steps as small as possible. This way when something breaks, we know exactly where, without needing to dig and root around. 2. All security credentials besides development environment must be sources from individual Vault instances. Keys to those containers should exist only on the CI/CD box and accessible by a few people (the less the better). This is pretty self-explanatory, as anything besides dev may contain sensitive data and, at times, be public-facing. Because of that appropriate security must be present. TeamCity shines in this department with excellent secrets-management. 3. Every part of the build chain shall consume and produce artifacts. If it creates nothing, it likely shouldn't be its own build. This way if any issue shows up with any environment or version, all developer has to do it is grab appropriate artifacts to reproduce the issue locally. 4. Deployment builds should be directly tied to specific Git branches/tags. This enables much easier tracking of what caused an issue, including automated identifying and tagging the author (nothing like automated regression testing!).

    Speaking of deployments, I generally try to keep it simple but also with a close eye on the wallet. Because of that, I am more than happy with AWS or another cloud provider, but also constantly peeking at the loads and do we get the value of what we are paying for. Often enough the pattern of use is not constantly erratic, but rather has a firm baseline which could be migrated away from the cloud and into bare metal boxes. That is another part where this approach strongly triumphs over the common Docker and CircleCI setup, where you are very much tied in to use cloud providers and getting out is expensive. Here to embrace bare-metal hosting all you need is a help of some container-based self-hosting software, my personal preference is with Proxmox and LXC. Following that all you must write are ansible scripts to manage hardware of Proxmox, similar way as you do for Amazon EC2 (ansible supports both greatly) and you are good to go. One does not exclude another, quite the opposite, as they can live in great synergy and cut your costs dramatically (the heavier your base load, the bigger the savings) while providing production-grade resiliency.

    See more
    Thierry Schellenbach

    Releasing new versions of our services is done by Travis CI. Travis first runs our test suite. Once it passes, it publishes a new release binary to GitHub.

    Common tasks such as installing dependencies for the Go project, or building a binary are automated using plain old Makefiles. (We know, crazy old school, right?) Our binaries are compressed using UPX.

    Travis has come a long way over the past years. I used to prefer Jenkins in some cases since it was easier to debug broken builds. With the addition of the aptly named “debug build” button, Travis is now the clear winner. It’s easy to use and free for open source, with no need to maintain anything.

    #ContinuousIntegration #CodeCollaborationVersionControl

    See more
    Shippable logo

    Shippable

    62
    53
    128
    Shippable is a SaaS platform that lets you easily add Continuous Integration/Deployment to your Github & Bitbucket repos
    62
    53
    + 1
    128
    PROS OF SHIPPABLE
    • 18
      Free private repositories
    • 16
      Built on docker
    • 14
      Continuous deployment
    • 13
      Bitbucket integration
    • 12
      Fastest continuous integration and deployment
    • 11
      Team permissions
    • 9
      Flexible Configuration
    • 8
      Matrix builds
    • 8
      Finer GitHub Scope
    • 6
      Intelligent Notifications
    • 4
      Awesome experience
    • 4
      Easy Setup
    • 3
      Fast
    • 1
      Custom docker containers
    • 1
      2x faster than other CI/CD platforms
    CONS OF SHIPPABLE
      Be the first to leave a con

      related Shippable posts

      Codefresh logo

      Codefresh

      59
      107
      47
      CI/CD Tailor-Made For Docker
      59
      107
      + 1
      47
      PROS OF CODEFRESH
      • 11
        Fastest and easiest way to work with Docker
      • 7
        Great support/fast builds/awesome ui
      • 6
        Great onboarding
      • 5
        Freestyle build steps to support custom CI/CD scripting
      • 4
        Easy setup
      • 4
        Robust feature-preview/qa environments on-demand
      • 2
        Firendly API
      • 2
        Slack Integration
      • 2
        Kubernetes Integration
      • 2
        Codefresh Runner for supporting hybrid infra
      • 2
        GitOps friendly
      CONS OF CODEFRESH
      • 1
        Questionable product quality and stability
      • 1
        Expensive compared to alternatives

      related Codefresh posts

      GitLab logo

      GitLab

      53.1K
      45K
      2.4K
      Open source self-hosted Git management software
      53.1K
      45K
      + 1
      2.4K
      PROS OF GITLAB
      • 502
        Self hosted
      • 428
        Free
      • 336
        Has community edition
      • 241
        Easy setup
      • 239
        Familiar interface
      • 134
        Includes many features, including ci
      • 110
        Nice UI
      • 82
        Good integration with gitlabci
      • 55
        Simple setup
      • 33
        Has an official mobile app
      • 32
        Free private repository
      • 29
        Continuous Integration
      • 20
        Open source, great ui (like github)
      • 16
        Slack Integration
      • 12
        Full CI flow
      • 10
        Free and unlimited private git repos
      • 8
        User, group, and project access management is simple
      • 7
        Built-in CI
      • 7
        All in one (Git, CI, Agile..)
      • 7
        Intuitive UI
      • 4
        Both public and private Repositories
      • 3
        Integrated Docker Registry
      • 3
        CI
      • 3
        Full DevOps suite with Git
      • 3
        It's powerful source code management tool
      • 3
        Excellent
      • 3
        Build/pipeline definition alongside code
      • 3
        Issue system
      • 3
        Mattermost Chat client
      • 3
        So easy to use
      • 2
        Because is the best remote host for git repositories
      • 2
        Dockerized
      • 2
        Free private repos
      • 2
        Great for team collaboration
      • 2
        Unlimited free repos & collaborators
      • 2
        It's fully integrated
      • 2
        I like the its runners and executors feature
      • 2
        One-click install through DigitalOcean
      • 2
        Security and Stable
      • 2
        Low maintenance cost due omnibus-deployment
      • 2
        On-premises
      • 1
        Kubernetes integration with GitLab CI
      • 1
        Multilingual interface
      • 1
        Review Apps feature
      • 1
        Powerful software planning and maintaining tools
      • 1
        Groups of groups
      • 1
        Built-in Docker Registry
      • 1
        Beautiful
      • 1
        Wounderful
      • 1
        Opensource
      • 1
        Not Microsoft Owned
      • 1
        Many private repo
      • 1
        Published IP list for whitelisting (gl-infra#434)
      • 1
        The dashboard with deployed environments
      • 1
        Powerful Continuous Integration System
      • 1
        Kubernetes Integration
      • 1
        Native CI
      • 1
        HipChat intergration
      • 1
        It includes everything I need, all packaged with docker
      • 0
        Supports Radius/Ldap & Browser Code Edits
      CONS OF GITLAB
      • 27
        Slow ui performance
      • 7
        Introduce breaking bugs every release
      • 5
        Insecure (no published IP list for whitelisting)
      • 1
        Built-in Docker Registry
      • 0
        Review Apps feature

      related GitLab posts

      Tim Abbott
      Shared insights
      on
      GitHubGitHubGitLabGitLab
      at

      I have mixed feelings on GitHub as a product and our use of it for the Zulip open source project. On the one hand, I do feel that being on GitHub helps people discover Zulip, because we have enough stars (etc.) that we rank highly among projects on the platform. and there is a definite benefit for lowering barriers to contribution (which is important to us) that GitHub has such a dominant position in terms of what everyone has accounts with.

      But even ignoring how one might feel about their new corporate owner (MicroSoft), in a lot of ways GitHub is a bad product for open source projects. Years after the "Dear GitHub" letter, there are still basic gaps in its issue tracker:

      • You can't give someone permission to label/categorize issues without full write access to a project (including ability to merge things to master, post releases, etc.).
      • You can't let anyone with a GitHub account self-assign issues to themselves.
      • Many more similar issues.

      It's embarrassing, because I've talked to GitHub product managers at various open source events about these things for 3 years, and they always agree the thing is important, but then nothing ever improves in the Issues product. Maybe the new management at MicroSoft will fix their product management situation, but if not, I imagine we'll eventually do the migration to GitLab.

      We have a custom bot project, http://github.com/zulip/zulipbot, to deal with some of these issues where possible, and every other large project we talk to does the same thing, more or less.

      See more
      Joshua Dean Küpper
      CEO at Scrayos UG (haftungsbeschränkt) · | 20 upvotes · 448.1K views

      We use GitLab CI because of the great native integration as a part of the GitLab framework and the linting-capabilities it offers. The visualization of complex pipelines and the embedding within the project overview made Gitlab CI even more convenient. We use it for all projects, all deployments and as a part of GitLab Pages.

      While we initially used the Shell-executor, we quickly switched to the Docker-executor and use it exclusively now.

      We formerly used Jenkins but preferred to handle everything within GitLab . Aside from the unification of our infrastructure another motivation was the "configuration-in-file"-approach, that Gitlab CI offered, while Jenkins support of this concept was very limited and users had to resort to using the webinterface. Since the file is included within the repository, it is also version controlled, which was a huge plus for us.

      See more
      Travis CI logo

      Travis CI

      9.5K
      6.3K
      1.8K
      A hosted continuous integration service for open source and private projects
      9.5K
      6.3K
      + 1
      1.8K
      PROS OF TRAVIS CI
      • 506
        Github integration
      • 388
        Free for open source
      • 272
        Easy to get started
      • 191
        Nice interface
      • 163
        Automatic deployment
      • 72
        Tutorials for each programming language
      • 40
        Friendly folks
      • 29
        Support for multiple ruby versions
      • 28
        Osx support
      • 24
        Easy handling of secret keys
      • 6
        Fast builds
      • 4
        Support for students
      • 3
        The best tool for Open Source CI
      • 3
        Hosted
      • 3
        Build Matrices
      • 2
        Github Pull Request build
      • 2
        Straightforward Github/Coveralls integration
      • 2
        Easy of Usage
      • 2
        Integrates with everything
      • 1
        Caching resolved artifacts
      • 1
        Docker support
      • 1
        Great Documentation
      • 1
        Build matrix
      • 1
        No-brainer for CI
      • 1
        Debug build workflow
      • 1
        Ubuntu trusty is not supported
      • 1
        Free for students
      • 1
        Configuration saved with project repository
      • 1
        Multi-threaded run
      • 1
        Hipchat Integration
      • 0
        Perfect
      CONS OF TRAVIS CI
      • 8
        Can't be hosted insternally
      • 3
        Feature lacking
      • 3
        Unstable
      • 2
        Incomplete documentation for all platforms

      related Travis CI posts

      Thierry Schellenbach

      Releasing new versions of our services is done by Travis CI. Travis first runs our test suite. Once it passes, it publishes a new release binary to GitHub.

      Common tasks such as installing dependencies for the Go project, or building a binary are automated using plain old Makefiles. (We know, crazy old school, right?) Our binaries are compressed using UPX.

      Travis has come a long way over the past years. I used to prefer Jenkins in some cases since it was easier to debug broken builds. With the addition of the aptly named “debug build” button, Travis is now the clear winner. It’s easy to use and free for open source, with no need to maintain anything.

      #ContinuousIntegration #CodeCollaborationVersionControl

      See more
      Tim Abbott
      Shared insights
      on
      Travis CITravis CICircleCICircleCI
      at

      We actually started out on Travis CI, but we've migrated our main builds to CircleCI, and it's been a huge improvement.

      The reason it's been a huge improvement is that Travis CI has a fundamentally bad design for their images, where they start with a standard base Linux image containing tons of packages (several versions of postgres, every programming language environment, etc). This is potentially nice for the "get builds for a small project running quickly" use case, but it's a total disaster for a larger project that needs a decent number of dependencies and cares about the performance and reliability of their build.

      This issue is exacerbated by their networking infrastructure being unreliable; we usually saw over 1% of builds failing due to transient networking errors in Travis CI, even after we added retries to the most frequently failing operations like apt update or pip install. And they never install Ubuntu's point release updates to their images. So doing an apt update, apt install, or especially apt upgrade would take forever. We ended up writing code to actually uninstall many of their base packages and pin the versions of hundreds of others to get a semi-fast, semi-reliable build. It was infuriating.

      The CircleCI v2.0 system has the right design for a CI system: we can customize the base image to start with any expensive-to-install packages we need for our build, and we can update that image if and when we want to. The end result is that when migrating, we were able to delete all the hacky optimizations mentioned above, while still ending up with a 50% faster build latency. And we've also had 5-10x fewer issues with networking-related flakes, which means one doesn't have to constantly check whether a build failure is actually due to an issue with the code under test or "just another networking flake".

      See more
      Bamboo logo

      Bamboo

      491
      504
      17
      Tie automated builds, tests, and releases together in a single workflow
      491
      504
      + 1
      17
      PROS OF BAMBOO
      • 10
        Integrates with other Atlassian tools
      • 4
        Great notification scheme
      • 2
        Great UI
      • 1
        Has Deployment Projects
      CONS OF BAMBOO
      • 6
        Expensive
      • 1
        Low community support
      • 1
        Bad UI
      • 1
        Bad integration with docker

      related Bamboo posts

      xie zhifeng
      Shared insights
      on
      BambooBambooJenkinsJenkinsGitLabGitLab
      at

      I am choosing a DevOps toolset for my team. GitLab is open source and quite cloud-native. Jenkins has a very popular environment system but old-style technicals. Bamboo is very nice but integrated only with Atlassian products.

      See more