Related
I'm a developer whose transitioning into Devops. By observation, I've noticed that a lot of dev shops have started using Octopus Deploy and Azure Devops Services (AzDo, formerly VSTS), or they are starting new projects to setup devops ci/cd pipelines AND they spec to use both tools.
I've been through some quick training for both tools and though they aren't perfectly the same, AzDo seems to offer all of the same features as Octopus Deploy.
So, my question is if a company is already using AzDo for much of their version control, or anything CI/CD pipeline-related, why would you use Octopus? What benefit does it offer to use Octopus for your build and deploys to AzDo?
Note, I am very, very new to Devops. I'm just asking because at the "10,000 feet view" there doesn't seem to be any reason for Octopus if you're already using AzDo. I mention Octopus Deploy by name because I see it come up frequently. However, I assume there could be other tools that serve the same purpose of automatic build and deploying that might also integrate with AzDo. However, AzDo offers build and deploy built in one. Why split out the work?
Let me preface why I like to both build and deploy with VSTS:
Same permissioning end to end
Line of sight from end to end build and deployment
Reasons I favor Octopus Deploy over VSTS Release:
Ability to upload packages/artifacts
External ones that are maybe one off packages to get deployed for a specific release
Target Definition
When you create Targets or servers you are deploying to, you are able to add a target to one or multiple environments and assign tags/roles to a target. What does this mean? More flexible server definition rather than defining strict Agents to a pool or servers to a Deployment Group, you can allow a target to span multiple (ie: a testing server that spans your Dev and Test environments and only gets triggered on steps that are defined for that role). I realize you can accomplish similar things to this in VSTS but in my opinion it's far more cumbersome.
Variable Definition
Variables can be grouped at a global level and grouped by a specific pipeline/process (that part is similar to VSTS). Variables can also be grouped or scoped by environments or roles (above) so you are able to have different variable values per role per environment; both super granular and flexible. Places this comes in handy is if you have a backend server with a connection string and maybe 2 content delivery nodes (role - content delivery) that get slightly different values than the backend server. At the moment, I do not know (other than creating new environments) how one would accomplish the same in VSTS.
Process Definition
All of the above comes together in the process definition of Octopus Deploy. The super flexible and granular variables and target definition allows you to focus on the actual deployment process rather than getting hung up on the nuances of the UI and its limitations. One example would be defining a process where the first step would be taking something out of a load balancer from a central server, step two deploy code to delivery server one, step three put back in lb, step 4 take out node two from lb called from a central server, step 5 deploy code to node two, and last step, back into load balancer. I realize it's a very simple hypothetical, but within Octopus Deploy, it's one steady process filtered to execute on specific roles, within VSTS you would have to break that down into different agent phases and probably pipelines.
Above are really the biggest points I see to use Octopus Deploy over VSTS Release. Now why would someone use VSTS to build and OD to release/deploy? There are a lot of different factors that go into it, some are corporate drivers like having an enterprise git client that has permissions handled thru MSDN. Sometimes it's a project management driver of having work items tied tightly to commit and builds, but with the added flexibility that OD brings to the table for free/minimal cost.
Hoping this help shine a little light into maybe why some people are crossing streams and using both VSTS and OD.
A lot of good points have been made already, but it really comes down to what you need. I would venture a lot of us started using Octopus before Release Management was really a thing.
We use VSTS for all our source control and builds and then all our deployments are handled through Octopus.
When we started evaluating tools, VSTS had nothing for deployments. Even now, they are still playing catch up to Octopus in feature set.
If you are doing true multi-tenanted and multi-environment deployments, I don't think VSTS really compares. We are using Octopus with around 30 tenants, some on Azure, some on premise. We deploy a mix of web and desktop apps. We are even using Octopus to deploy some legacy VB6 and winforms applications.
Multi-Tenancy (critical for us)
VSTS added Deployment Groups a while ago which sound pretty similar to Octopus Environments before multi-tenancy was implemented. Before Octopus had true multi-tenancy (it's been around a while now), people would work around it by creating different environments per tenant, like "CustomerA - Dev", "CustomerA - Prod", etc. Now you just have your Dev/Test/Prod environments and each tenant can have variables scoped to those individual environments.
Support
Documentation is excellent and it's really easy to get up and running.
The few times I've needed to contact someone at Octopus, they've answered very quickly and knowledgeably.
Usability
Having the Octopus dashboard giving us an overview of all our projects is amazing. I don't know of anyway to do this in VSTS, without going into each individual project.
Octopus works great on a mobile device for checking deployment status and even starting new deployments.
Community
Octopus works with their customers to understand what they want and they often release draft RFCs and have several times completely changed course based on customer feedback.
If we know what sort of applications you are deploying, and to what kinds of environments, we would be able to better tailor our responses.
The features you see today in VSTS weren't there a few years ago, so there might be an historical reason.
But I want to state here some non-opinionated reasons that may suggest an organization to opt for different tools instead of one.
Separate responsibility and access levels
Multiple CI tools in dev teams (orgs that are using also Jenkins or TeamCity or else) and need to standardize and control deployments
An org needs a feature available only in Octopus (maybe Multi-tenancy)
Octopus does a great job of focusing on deployments. Features reach octopus before vsts, support is local and responsive. That, and you never run out of build/release minutes!
Seriously though, I just like to support smaller companies where possible and if all features were equal, I'd still pick them.
The big reason in the past was that TFS On prem and early VSTS did NOT support non-Microsoft (.Net) code very well if at all. You could utilize the source control and work features of TFS and then use octopus/Jenkins etc... as the build release parts to cover code that TFS didn't really know what to do with.
Also the release pipelines used to be very simplistic and not that useful where the other products were all plugin based and could do (almost) anything you needed them to. Most of that has changed so that VSTS is much better at working with Non-Microsoft code bases then it used to be. Over time integrations get created inside a companies walls and undoing those decisions can be more painful then just having "too many" tools. Also I feel like there is just more people out there familiar with those tools since they have been mature longer and cover a larger part of the development world then VSTS has in the past.
To fully implement CD you need both. VSTS runs tests and is a build server. OD isn’t. VSTS is light on sophisticated application installations. And if you are provisioning environments, IaC style, you need Terraform in addition. Don’t try to shoehorn everything into a single tool. DevOps requires a whole ecosystem. The reasons are not historical.
I have been researching and am trying to figure out the best branching and deployment strategy to accomplish the requirements below. Maybe I’m missing something but it is more complicated than it seems. Ideally, we’d just have one permanent branch, ‘master’, that could have specific commits tagged to mark releases to production.
Our current strategy is based on Git Flow and has permanent branches ‘master’ (only has releases to production) and ‘develop’. The primary thing that complicates using a multiple permanent-branches model is the concept of “promoting” the same build from the staging environment to production. Currently, this needs to be done in a separate source code branch (deployments to staging come from ‘develop’, deployments to prod come from ‘master’).
Tools: Git (VSTS), TeamCity, Octopus Deploy
Requirements (feature and hotfix lifecycles):
All code is reviewed via pull requests (enforced via branch policies)
All code gets deployed to a staging environment for testing
We can quickly go back to any snapshot of code that was deployed previously
If testing is successful, then the same build can be “promoted” from our staging environment to production (no need to build again)
Features accumulate over time before pushing out to production as a single release. Hotfixes have to be able to go through without getting caught up in the "all or nothing" next regular release.
I like the idea of having one permanent branch with tags (re: The master/develop split is redundant, http://endoflineblog.com/gitflow-considered-harmful), but having additional permanent branches may better facilitate deploying to different lifecycles/versions (feature and hotfix) to Octopus.
I have been wrestling with how best to pull this off and I may be over complicating things. Any feedback is appreciated.
It seems you have a number of questions and they are quite broad... I'll add some comments to each of your requirements as a conversation starter, but this whole thread might get blocked by moderators as it is definitely not the style of questions SO was made for.
All code is reviewed via pull requests (enforced via branch policies)
I haven't looked at VSTS for ages, but I'd expect they already support branch policies and pull-requests, so not sure if there's anything you need here other than configure settings in your repositories.
In case VSTS does not support that, you might consider moving to a tool that does e.g. BitBucket, GitHub, etc. Both of these have an on-premises version in case you can't (or don't want to) use the cloud hosted version.
All code gets deployed to a staging environment for testing
You achieve that with setting up lifecycles in Octopus Deploy, to make sure deployments/promotions follow the the sequence you want.
We can quickly go back to any snapshot of code that was deployed previously
You already have source control, so all you need now is traceability from the code that is deployed in an environment, to the deployment version in Octopus Deploy, the build job in TeamCity, the branch and exact commit in your source control.
There's a few things that you can do, to achieve that:
Define a versioning scheme that works for you. I like to use semantic versioning. "Major" and "Minor" versions are defined by the developers, and the "Patch" is the auto-incremented number from TeamCity (%build.number%). Every git push build the code and generates a unique build version (%major%.%minor%.%build.number%)
As part of the build steps in TeamCity, before you compile the code, make sure your source files are patched with the version number assigned by each build, the commit hash from your source control, and the branch name. e.g. if you are using .NET, make sure all the AssemblyInfo.cs files are updated with that version, so that the version is embedded in the binaries. This allows anyone to query the version looking at the properties of the binary files, and also allows you to display the app version on the app itself (e.g. status bar, footer, caption, about box, etc.)
Have TeamCity tag your source control with the version number of every build, so you can quickly see on your source control history. You probably only want to do that for the master branch, though which is what you care about.
Have Octopus tag your source control with the deployment version number and the environment name, so that you can quickly see (from your source control) what got deployed where.
Steps 1 and 2 are the most important ones, really. 3 and 4 are just nice-to-have. Most of the time you'll just open the app in the environment, check the commit hash in the "About", and do a git checkout to that commit hash...
If testing is successful, then the same build can be "promoted" from our staging environment to production (no need to build again)
Again, Octopus Deploy lifecycles, and make sure anything different in each environment is defined in the configuration file of the application, which is updated during the Octopus deployment, using environment-specific variables.
In terms of branch workflow, this last requirement makes it mandatory to merge changes into master (or whatever your "production" branch is) before the deployment lifecycle can begin.
We are using octopus to deploy our project. A bunch of steps which gets executed during the deployment. One of them is a powershell script and that powershell script is a work in progress.
However to test the script we have to perform a dummy check in or can create a new release in octopus after we change the build powershell script step, and it will pick up the build steps straight away and does not cache, else the script which gets executed is the previous version.
I do not know if this is caching or some other issue. I think this is some kind of issue with octopus or setting which I am missing.
Please help.
An important aspect of deployment automation is ensuring that deployments are repeated exactly each time they run.
When you create a release in Octopus Deploy, the artefacts, process, and variables are all "locked in" for that release. This means no matter what changes you make, for the lifetime of that release it will be performed identically every time.
If your deployment tool didn't do this, the same relase could work in your test environment, but then fail in the live environment because the deployment process changed in some way.
In effect, you release changes to the deployment process in the same way you release changes to the application itself.
This is why you need to create a new release in Octopus Deploy in order to see the changes you make.
This is both a blessing and a curse... On the one hand - your existing release scheduled for Production is protected from changes being made in lower environments. On the other hand - you are forced to recreate a release if you need to make a slight process change mid-cycle. This is arguable the correct approach since you would want to test any changes - but maybe not relevant if your changes can only be tested in higher environments (e.g maybe only Production is load balanced).
The software does allow to update Variables mid-cycle, but not Process Steps. I believe this feature is been requested for a future release.
http://help.octopusdeploy.com/discussions/questions/5130-how-to-update-a-single-variable-in-an-existing-release
I recently joined a company as Release Engineer where a large number of development teams develop numerous services, applications, web-apps in various languages with various inter-dependencies among them.
I am trying to find a way to simplify and preferably automate releases. Currently the release team is doing the following to "release" the software:
CURRENT PROCESS OF RELEASE
Diff the latest revision from SCM between QA and INTEGRATION branches.
Manually copy/paste "relevant" changes between those branches.
Copy the latest binaries to the right location (this is automated using a .cmd script).
Restart any services
MY QUESTION
I am hoping to avoid steps 1. and 2. altogether (obviously), but am running into issues where differences between the environments is causing the config files to be different for different environments (e.g. QA vs. INTEGRATION). Here is a sample:
IN THE QA ENVIRONMENT:
<setting name="ServiceUri" serializeAs="String">
<value>https://servicepoint.QA.domain.net/</value>
</setting>
IN THE INTEGRATION ENVIRONMENT:
<setting name="ServiceUri" serializeAs="String">
<value>https://servicepoint.integration.domain.net/</value>
</setting>
If you look closely then the only difference between the two <setting> tags above is the URL in the <value> tag. This is because the QA and INTEGRATION environments are in different data-centers and are ever so slightly not in sync (with them growing apart as development gets faster/better/stronger). Changes such as this where the URL/endpoint is different are TO BE IGNORED during "release" (i.e. these are not "relevant" changes to merge from QA to INTEGRATION).
Even in a regular release (about once a week) I have to deal with a dozen config files changes that have to released from QA to integration and I have to manually go through each config file and copy/paste non URL-related changes between the files. I can't simply take an entire package that the CI tool spits out from QA (or after QA), since the URL/endpoints are different.
Since there are multiple programming languages in use, the config file example above could be C#, C++ or Java. So am hoping any solution would be language agnostic.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTS/PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES/OS/ETC.
Multiple programming languages - C#, C++, Java, Ruby. Management is aware of this as one of the problems, since Release team is has to be king-of-all-trades and is addressing this.
Multiple OS - Windows 2003/2008/2012, CentOS, Red Hat, HP-UX. Management is addressing this too - starting to consolidate and limit to Windows 2012 and CentOS.
SCM - Perforce, TFS. Management is trying to move everyone to a single tool (likely TFS)
CI is being advocated, though not mandatory - Management is pushing change through but is taking time.
I have given example of QA and INTEGRATION, but in reality there is QA (managed by developers+testers), INTEGRATION (managed by my team), STABLE (releases to STABLE by my team but supported by Production Ops), PRODUCTION (supported by Production Ops). These are the official environments - others are currently unofficial, but devs or test teams have a few more. I would eventually want to start standardizing/consolidating these unofficial envs too, since devs+tests should not have to worry about doing this kind of stuff.
There is a lot of work being done to standardize how the binaries are being deployed using tools like DeployIT (http://www.xebialabs.com/products) which may provide some way to simplify these config changes.
The devs teams are agile and release often, but that just means more work diffing config files.
SOLUTIONS SUGGESTED BY TEAM MEMBERS:
Current mind-set is to use a LoadBalancer and standardize names across different environments, but I am not sure if "a process" such as this is the right solution. There must be a better way that can start with how devs write configs to how release environments meet dependencies.
Alternatively some team members are working on install-scripts (InstallShield / MSI) to automate find/replace or URLs/enpoints between envs. I am hoping this is not the solution, but it is doable.
If I have missed anything or should provide more information, please let me know.
Thanks
[Update]
References:
Managing complex Web.Config files between deployment environments - C# web.config specific, though a very good start.
http://www.hanselman.com/blog/ManagingMultipleConfigurationFileEnvironmentsWithPreBuildEvents.aspx - OK, though as a first look, this seems rather rudimentary, that may break easily.
Generally the problem isn't too difficult - you need branches for each of the environments and CI build setup for them. So a merge to the QA branch would trigger a build of that code and a custom deployment to QA. Simple.
Now managing multiple config files isn;t quite so easy (unless you have 1 for each environment, in which case you just call them Int.config, QA.config etc, store them all in the SCM, and pick the appropriate one to use in each branch's deployment script - eg, when the build for QA runs, it picks qa.config and copies it to the correct location and renames it to the correct name)(incidentally, this is the approach I tend to use as its very simple).
If you have multiple configs you need to use, then its always going to be a manual process - but you can help yourself by copying all the relevant configs to a build staging area that an admin will use to perform the deployment. Its a good first step in that the build they have in a staging directory will be the correct one for them, they just have to choose which config to use either during (eg as an option in the installer) or by manually copying the appropriate config over.
I would not try to manage some automated way of taking a single config file in source control and re-writing it with different data in the build, or pre-deploy steps. That way lies madness, and a lot of continual hassle trying to maintain the data and the tooling. Keep separate configs in place and make sure the devs know to update all of them when they make a change. (Or, you can hold 1 config in the SCM tree and make sure they know that merging their changes must not overwrite any existing modifications - multiple configs is easier)
I agree with #gbjbaanb. Have one config for each environment. Get your developers to write apps that read their properties (including their URLs) from config files and commit config files for each environment. Not only does this help you with deployment, but config files under revision control provides reproducibility, full transparency, and an audit trail of your environment specific settings.
Personally, I prefer to create a single deployable package that works on any environment by including all of the environment configs (even the ones you aren't using). You can then have some deployment automation that figures out which config files the apps should use and sets that up appropriately.
Thanks to #gman and #gbjbaanb for the the answers (https://stackoverflow.com/a/16310735/143189, https://stackoverflow.com/a/16246598/143189), but I felt that they didn't help me solve the underlying problem that I am facing, and restating just to make clear.
The code seems very aware of the environment in which they run. How to write environment-agnostic code?
The suggestions in the answers above are to store 1 config file for each environment (environment-config). This is possible, but any addition/deletion/edit of non-environment settings will have to be ported over to each environment-config.
After some study, I wonder if the following would work better?
Keep the config file's structure consistent/standardized e.g. XML. Try to keep the environment-specific endpoints in this config-file but store them in a way that allows easy access to the specific individual nodes/settings (e.g. using XPath).
When deploying to a specific environment, then your deployment tool should be able to parse (e.g. using XPath) and update the environment-specific endpoint to the value for the specific environment to which you are deploying.
The above is not a unique idea. There are some existing implementations that tackle the above solution already:
http://www.iis.net/learn/develop/windows-web-application-gallery/reference-for-the-web-application-package & http://www.iis.net/learn/publish/using-web-deploy/web-deploy-parameterization (WebDeploy)
http://docs.xebialabs.com/releases/3.9/deployit/packagingmanual.html#using-placeholders-in-ci-properties (DeployIt)
Home-spun solutions using XPath find and replace.
In short, while there are programming-language-specific solutions, and programming-language-agnostic solutions, I guess the big downfall is that Release Management needs to be considered during development too, else it will cause deployment headaches - I don't like that, since it sounds like "development should be aware of what tests will be designed". Is there a need AND a way to avoid this, is the big questions.
I'm working through the process of creating a "deployment pipeline" for a web application at the moment and am sifting my way through similar problems. Your environment sounds more complicated than ours, but I've got some thoughts.
First, read this book, I'm 2/3 the way through it and it's answering every question I ever had about software delivery, and many that I never thought to ask: http://www.amazon.com/Continuous-Delivery-Deployment-Automation-Addison-Wesley/dp/0321601912/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1371099379&sr=1-1
Version Control Systems are your best friend. Absolutely everything required to build a deployable package should be retrievable from your VCS.
Use a Continuous Integration server, we use TeamCity and are pretty happy with it so far.
The CI server builds packages that are totally agnostic to the eventual target environment. We still have a lot of code that "knows" about the target environments, which of course means that if we add a new environment, we have to modify all such code to make sure it will cope and then re-test it to make sure we didn't break anything in the process. I now see that this is error-prone and completely avoidable.
Tools like Visual Studio support config file transformation, which we looked at briefly but quickly realized that it depends on environment-specific config files being prepared with the code, by the developers in order to be added to the package. Instead, break out any settings that are specific to a particular environment into their own config mechanism (e.g. another xml file) and have your deployment tool apply this to the package as it deploys. Keep these files in VCS, but use a separate repository so that revisions to config don't trigger new builds and cause the build number to get falsely inflated.
This way, your environment-specific config files only contain things that change on a per-environment basis, and only if that environment needs something different to the default. Contrary to #gbjbaanb's recommendation, we are planning to do whatever is necessary to keep the package "pure" and the environment-specific config separate, even if it requires custom scripting etc. so I guess we're heading down the path of madness. :-)
For us, Powershell, XML and Web Deploy parameterization will be instrumental.
I'm also planning to be quite aggressive about refactoring the config files so that the same information isn't repeated several times in various places.
Good luck!
We have 3 environments:
Development: Team City deploys here for Subversion commits on trunk.
Staging: User acceptance is done here, on builds that are release candidates.
Production: When UAT passed, the passing code set is deployed here.
We're using Team City and only have Continuous Integration setup with our development environment. I don't want to save artifacts for every development deployment that Team City does. I want an assigned person to be able to fire a build configuration that will deploy a certain successful development deployment to our staging server.
Then, I want each staging deployment to save artifacts. When a staging deployment passes UAT, I want to deploy that package to Production.
I'm not sure how to set this up in Team City. I'm using version 6.5.4, and I'm aware there's a "Promote..." action/trigger, but I think it depends on saved artifacts. I don't want to save development deployments each time as artifacts, but I do want the person running the staging deployment to be able to specify which successful development deployment to deploy to staging.
I'm aware there may be multiple ways to do this, is there a best practice? What is your setup and why do you recommend it?
Update:
I have one answer so far, and it's an idea we had considered internally. I'd really like to know if anyone has a somewhat automated way for deploying to a staging/production environemnt via Team City itself, where only people with certain role/permission can run a deploy script to production rather than having to manually deal with any kind of artifact package. Anyone?
Update 2
I still have 1 day to award bounty, and I thought the answer below didn't answer my question, but after rereading it I see that my question wasn't what I thought it was.
Are there any ways to use Team City for some kind of automated deployment to Staging/Production environments?
I think you're actually asking two different questions here; one is about controlling access rights to TeamCity builds and another is about the logistics of artifact management.
Regarding permissions, I assume what you mean by "only people with certain role/permission can run a deploy script to production" and your response to Julien is that you probably don't want devs deploying direct to production but you do want them to be able to see other builds in the project. This is possibly also similar to Julien's scenario when IT then take the process "offline" from TeamCity (either that or it's just IT doing what IT do and insisting they must use a separate, entirely inefficient process because "that's just the way we do it" - don't get me started on that!)
The problem is simply that all permissions in TeamCity are applied against the project and never the build so if you've got one project with all your builds, there's no ability to apply permissions granularity to dev versus production builds. I've previously dealt with this in two ways:
Handle it socially. Everyone knows what their responsibilities are and you don't run what you're not meant to run. If you do, it's audited and traceable back to YOU. Work fine when there's maturity, a clear idea of responsibilities and not compliance requirement that prohibits it.
Create separate projects. I don't like having to do this but it does fix the problem. You can still use artifacts from another project and means you simply end up with one project containing builds that deploy to environments you're happy for all the devs to access and another project to sensitive environments. The downside is that if the production build fails, the very people you probably want support from won't be able to access it!
Regarding artifact management, there's no problem with retaining these in the development build, just define a clean-up policy that only keeps artifacts from the last X builds if you're worried about capacity. A lot of people want certainty they're deploying the same compiled output to every environment which means once you build it, you want to keep it around for later use.
Once you have these artefacts from your dev deployment, you can re-deploy them to your other environments through separate builds. You'll have an issue with config transforms (assuming you're using them), but have a read of this 2 part series for some ideas on how to address that (I'm yet to absorb it in detail but I believe he's on the right track).
Does that answer your question? Is there anything still missing?
We also used TeamCity as our build server so let me explain our setup.
We have 4 environments
Development used by Dev to verify commits in a server environment
QA for testing purposes
Staging for deployment checks and some UAT
Production
We only use TeamCity to deploy to Development (Nightly builds) and to QA (on-demand).
The Dev build uses the trunk branch and QA build uses a different branch used for the RC.
Deployment to the Staging and Production are managed by the IT team, and are therefore not automated.
What we do instead is that we use TeamCity to produce artifacts from the QA build. The artifacts are the deployment kits sent for Staging/Production deployments.
That said, I am not sure if TeamCity would provide you a complete control on which build can be promoted to which environment. We basically control this on the SVN side with branches, and have different builds for those branches. You could (should) do be able to manage this it the same way. You can therefore ensure what is getting deployed.
I understand that your needs may be slightly different than ours but I hope that this will helps you finding the best setup.
I think you might want to check out something like Octopus Deploy or BuildMaster. They provide a nice structure for the deployment practices you're trying to automate. Both tools integrate with TeamCity nicely.
Basically, you'd continue to use TeamCity for CI, and you could also continue to deploy to your development environment with TeamCity too, but you'd use one of the deployment tools to promote an (existing) build to staging and production.
Edit 2014-02-05 – Update
The makers of BuildMaster have a new deployment feature – ProGet Deploy – for their NuGet server tool, ProGet. It's very similar to Octopus Deploy, tho I haven't played with it yet myself, so Octopus may have a better visualization of what versions have been deployed to which environments; I still use BuildMaster because of that important feature.
Also, I'm currently using both TeamCity, BuildMaster, and ProGet and I never want to go back to not having automated builds. Currently, all of my apps are built and deployed via BuildMaster. All of my library projects are built in TeamCity and deployed to ProGet. Being able to manage my internal dependencies via the NuGet infrastructure is nice.