I have stumbled upon Paul Duval's weblog entry "Continuous Integration is NOT about the CI server". Paul rightfully dismisses CruiseControl as "The" CI server and then proceeds to questioning having becoming a norm interchangeable use of the practice and the tools of Continuous Integration.
I agree with Paul in that it is often forgotten that Continuous Integration is a practice that spells small, often, but meaningful check-ins. Tools themselves do not make Continuous Integration and without the practice are mostly useless.
Yet, Continuous Integration is a lucky case of a practice that is well supported by tools, Continuous Integration systems, which makes it even more powerful. A Continuous Integration system such as Parabuild provides immediate feedback on quality of changes and allows a team practicing Continuous Integration quickly fixing a build breakage. Teams using such systems are confident in the changes they make, so they can move forward fast.
It is not possible without a Continuous Integration system in place. Dismissing such tools, Continuous Integration may cause more problems than bring benefits. Value of frequent check-ins without an automated validation is low at best.
Previous Topic
