Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
GitLab CI vs Hudson: What are the differences?
Introduction:
GitLab CI and Hudson are both continuous integration tools used in software development, however, they have key differences that distinguish them from one another. The following points will highlight the main differences between GitLab CI and Hudson.
Integration with GitLab: GitLab CI is tightly integrated with GitLab, offering seamless collaboration and continuous integration capabilities within the GitLab platform. On the other hand, Hudson is a standalone tool that needs to be integrated with external repositories and version control systems separately.
Pipeline Configuration: GitLab CI uses a YAML-based configuration file known as
.gitlab-ci.ymlto define pipelines and jobs, making it easier to configure and manage complex build processes. Hudson, on the other hand, relies on a UI-based configuration, which can be less flexible and more time-consuming for intricate pipeline setups.Scalability and Performance: GitLab CI is known for its scalability and high performance, able to handle large projects with ease through distributed builds and parallel processing. Hudson, while capable of handling smaller projects efficiently, may struggle with larger projects and complex build configurations due to performance limitations.
Community Support and Development: GitLab CI benefits from strong community support and frequent updates from GitLab Inc., ensuring continuous improvement and feature enhancements. Hudson, while still supported by its community, has seen a decline in active development and may have limited new features or updates compared to GitLab CI.
Security Features: GitLab CI offers robust security features such as protected branches, built-in CI/CD pipelines, and container registry integration for secure and streamlined development workflows. Hudson, while enabling security plug-ins and configurations, may require additional manual setup and maintenance for achieving similar levels of security as GitLab CI.
Built-in CI/CD Capabilities: GitLab CI provides native support for continuous integration and continuous delivery (CI/CD), offering a comprehensive set of tools for automating the build, test, and deployment processes. Hudson, while capable of integrating with CI/CD plugins and tools, may lack the out-of-the-box CI/CD capabilities and integrations present in GitLab CI.
In Summary, the key differences between GitLab CI and Hudson lie in their integration with GitLab, pipeline configuration methods, scalability and performance, community support, security features, and built-in CI/CD capabilities, with GitLab CI excelling in these aspects due to its seamless GitLab integration, YAML-based configuration, scalability, strong community backing, enhanced security features, and native CI/CD support.
We are a mid-size startup running Scala apps. Moving from Jenkins/EC2 to Spinnaker/EKS and looking for a tool to cover our CI/CD needs. Our code lives on GitHub, artifacts in nexus, images in ECR.
Drone is out, GitHub actions are being considered along with Circle CI and GitLab CI.
We primarily need:
- Fast SBT builds (caching)
- Low maintenance overhead (ideally serverless)
- Everything as code
- Ease of use
I think I've tried most of the CI tools out there at some point. It took me a while to get around to Buildkite because at first I didn't see much point given it seemed like you had to run the agent yourself. Eventually it dawned on me why this approach was more ingenious than I realised:
Running my app in a production (or production-like) environment was already a solved problem, because everything was already in some form of "everything as code". Having a test environment where the only difference was adding the Buildkite agent was a trivial addition.
It means that dev/test/prod parity is simple to achieve and maintain. It's also proven to be much easier to support than trying to deal with the problems that come with trying to force an app to fit into the nuances and constraints that are imposed by the containers/runtime of a CI service. When you completely control all of the environment the tests are running in you define those constraints too. It's been a great balance between a managed service and the flexibility of running it yourself.
And while none of my needs have hit the scale of Shopify (I saw one of their engineers speak about it at a conference once, I can't find the video now though 😞) it's good to know I can scale out my worker nodes to hundreds of thousands of workers to reduce the time it takes for my tests to run.
I would recommend you to consider the JFrog Platform that includes JFrog Pipelines - it will allow you to manage the full artifact life cycle for your sbt, docker and other technologies, and automate all of your CI and CD using cloud native declarative yaml pipelines. Will integrate smoothly with all your other toolset.
more configurable to setup ci/cd: * It can provide caching when build sbt, just add this section to yml file * Easy to use, many documentation
Weakness: * Need use gitlab as repository to bring more powerful configuration
Buddy is one of the most easy-to-use tools for CI I ever met. When I needed to set up the pipeline I was really impressed with how easy it is to create it with Buddy with only a few moments. It's literally like: 1. Add repo 2. Click - Click - Click 3. You're done and your app is on prod :D The top feature that I've found is a simple integration with different notification channels - not only Slack (which is the one by default), but Telegram and Discord. The support is also neat - guys respond pretty quickly on even a small issue.
Pros of GitLab CI
- Robust CI with awesome Docker support22
- Simple configuration13
- All in one solution9
- Source Control and CI in one place7
- Integrated with VCS on commit5
- Free and open source5
- Easy to configure own build server i.e. GitLab-Runner5
- Hosted internally2
- Built-in Docker Registry1
- Built-in support of Review Apps1
- Pipeline could be started manually1
- Enable or disable pipeline by using env variables1
- Gitlab templates could be shared across logical group1
- Easy to setup the dedicated runner to particular job1
- Built-in support of Kubernetes1
Pros of Hudson
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of GitLab CI
- Works best with GitLab repositories2
