Likelihood to Recommend Maven is great if you have an application with a lot of third-party dependencies and don’t want each developer to keep track of where the dependency can be downloaded. It’s also a great way to make it easy for a new developer to be able to build the application. It’s less suitable for simple projects without any third-party dependencies.
Read full review TravisCI is suited for workflows involving typical software development but unfortunately I think the software needs more improvement to be up to date with current development systems and TravisCI hasn't been improving much in that space in terms of integrations.
Read full review Pros If you are building in the Java ecosystem, then Maven definitely has the biggest repository of artifacts needed for such projects. It has a very simple to use extendable architecture. Everything is configurable through the Pom.xml file which is very simple to follow. Read full review It is very simple to configure a range of environment versions and settings in a simple YAML file. It integrates very well with Github, Bitbucket, or a private Git repo. The Travis CI portal beautifully shows you your history and console logs. Everything is presented in a very clear and intuitive interface. Read full review Cons Maven provides a very rigid model that makes customization tedious and sometimes impossible. While this can make it easier to understand any given Maven build, as long as you don’t have any special requirements, it also makes it unsuitable for many automation problems. Maven has few, built-in dependency scopes, which forces awkward module architectures in common scenarios like using test fixtures or code generation. There is no separation between unit and integration tests Read full review I think they could have a cheaper personal plan. I'd love to use Travis on personal projects, but I don't want to publish them nor I can pay $69 a month for personal projects that I don't want to be open source. There is no interface for configuring repos on Travis CI, you have to do it via a file in the repo. This make configuration very flexible, but also makes it harder for simpler projects and for small tweaks in the configuration. Read full review Usability The overall usability of Apache Maven is very good to us. We were able to incorporate it into our company's build process pretty quickly. We deployed it to multiple teams throughout the entire enterprise. We got good feedback from our developers stating that Apache Maven has simplified their build process. It also allowed to to standardize the build process for the entire enterprise, thus ensure that each development team is using the same, consistent process to build code.
Read full review TravisCI hasn't had much changes made to its software and has thus fallen behind compared to many other CI/CD applications out there. I can only give it a 5 because it does what it is supposed to do but lacks product innovation.
Read full review Support Rating I can't speak to the support, as I've never had issues. Apache Maven "just works," and errors were user errors or local nexus errors. Apache Maven is a great build/dependency management tool. I give it a 9/10 because occasionally the error message don't immediately indicate a solution...but again, those errors were always user or configuration errors, and the Maven documentation is extensive, so I don't find fault in Maven, but in its users.
Read full review After the private equity firm had bought this company the innovation and support has really gone downhill a lot. I am not a fan that they have gutted the software trying to make money from it and put innovation and product development second.
Read full review Alternatives Considered Ant, Maven's opposing framework, is often a point of comparison. Although Ant does not require formal conventions, it is procedural in the sense that you must tell Ant exactly what to do and when. It also lacks a lifecycle, along with goal definition and dependencies. Maven, on the other hand, requires less work as it knows exactly where your source code is as long as the pom.xml file is generated.
Read full review Jenkins is much more complicated to configure and start using. Although, one you have done that, it's extremely powerful and full of features. Maybe many more than Travis CI. As per
TeamCity , I would never go back to using it. It's also complicated to configure but it is not worth the trouble.
Codeship supports integration with
GitHub , GitLab and BitBucket. I've only used it briefly, but it seems to be a nice tool.
Read full review Return on Investment Apache Maven is an open source product from the Apache Software Foundation. Being free to use without any licensing constraints, we've been very happy with this product thus far. The software build and packaging times for our applications have improved greatly since our use of this tool. Read full review It's improved my ability to deliver working code, increasing my development velocity. It increases confidence that your own work (and those of external contributors) does not have any obvious bugs, provided you have sufficient test coverage. It helps to ensure consistent standards across a team (you can integrate process elements like "go lint" and other style checks as part of your build). It's zero-cost for public/open source projects, so the only investment is a few minutes setting up a build configuration file (hence the return is very high). The .travis.yml file is a great way for onboarding new developers, since it shows how to bootstrap a build environment and run a build "from scratch". Read full review ScreenShots