Talk:List of build automation software
|WikiProject Software / Computing||(Rated List-class)|
|This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, Build automation, due to size or style considerations.|
There are no reason to break out the make-based tools uniquely, except possibly to mention make in the history of build automation. The list is in fact incorrect. Build tools should probably be organized based on ability to do source code and binary dependency management vs. workflow automation, and whether the tool is an interpreter for a scripting language (make, Ant) or does not require scripting (OpenMake). Seanblanton (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The choice of entries looks strange, what is the criteria, why not to put Redo not yet in Wikipedia, Scons and Waf which have their wikipedia page, Buildout that is also in Wikipedia and link to this true page, and probably most of the Category: Build automation and Category: Compiling tools? --marc (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I see what the article is trying to achieve and I agree that that the way it is split out is awkward.
- Continuous Integration isn't a type of tool and it isn't a language; it is a practice. All references to Continuous Integration outside of the practice context should be corrected. You can perform Continuous Integration with many of these applications if you organize correctly.
- Many of these tools listed in this article are build tools or build scripting languages and not what the community would consider build automation tools; Build Automation tools automate the running of the build process, involving build tools or build scripting languages. Make, NMake, NAnt are all just build tools, for example. Ant is among the more ubiquitous build tools and it seems to be missing from the article, which takes away from the consistency either way).
- Where do you see a difference between "just build tools" and "built automation tools"? Schily (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Configuration Management Tools List in the wrong place
Page notice added
Template:Editnotices/Page/List of build automation software - that all entries should already have an article. Any objections? - David Gerard (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
@David: You reverted my addition to the list, and then I saw this rule about entries needing an article. I'm new to editing wikipedia, so I'm not sure if this is the right place to talk, but to avoid future mistakes I have to ask: is this a general rule adopted by wikipedia for all lists (the "Template" seem to point in this direction) or is this specific to this page (I certainly saw many wiki lists with items without articles, e.g. Comparison_of_continuous_integration_software).
Can you please clarify? There's probably a good reason for the rule: I get the goal to have a consistent encyclopedia, but on the other hand I'm afraid it adds a barrier to keeping lists up to date. For example I can always find 5 minutes to add an item with a 1-liner summary + informative external links, but currently I'm not committed to writing a full article. Thanks for your feedback - Antoine Poliakov (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
We might note that (almost?) any scripting language can be used to construct a build automation. Personally I just use a BASH script to automate the build of any of my larger project, (be they C/C++ Haskell Perl or even Java). I would be interested to know how many people/projects also use BASH for build automation. alexx (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)