Greenhouse gases - the easiest choice
Warming a cold planet should be probably much easier than cooling a hot one. Increasing a planetary albedo by springkling the surface by black, highly absorbing powder or using orbital mirrors might be part of the process, but it seems that the most important will be emission of greenhouse gasses into atmosphere. Atmosphere of Earth weigths approximately $5 \times 10^{18}$ kg, from which there is $3 \times 10^{15}$ kg of CO2.
There are greenhouse gasses, that are much more effective than the carbon dioxide. For example SF6, which is approximately 20,000x more effective. Following analysis is very simplified, but should give us some idea. Total greenhouse effect makes Earth warmer by 30 K. Total contribution of CO2 is around 10-20%, which is 3-6 K. Now, to make the same change by using SF6, we would need approximately $1.5 \times 10^{11}$ kg, or $1.5 \times 10^{8}$ tons. I can imagine that it would not be an easy task, but definitely possible using large industrial scale colony and proper resources.
Now, if we would like to increase the temperature by 30 K or more, the calculations become tricky. Some people say, that the total radiative forcing is logarithmic and for CO2, fit says it should be
$\text{Forcing} = 233.6+9.766*\log({\mathrm{CO}_2 \ \text{in ppm}})$
This, converted to temperature, would be
$\text{Temperature change} = 2.70+0.113*\log({\mathrm{CO}_2 \ \text{in ppm}})$
With dependence like this, it would be almost impossible to warm the planet more. But (for warming of planets luckily), the truth is more complicated:
Firstly, the IPCC scientists don't say this follows a ln function at all. They say it follows whatever their computer models says it follows. This is only a first order solution.
It is hard to predict how much of the greenhouse gas you would need, but the warming should be feasible, at least up to 30 K. Particularly if there is some other frozen gas on the surface, the initial increase in temperature will induce positive feedback, which will make the process much easier.
Very, very cold planets
One might also be interested in terraforming extremely cold planets similar to Pluto. Then the greenhouse gasses will be necessary, but not sufficient. We could try to deploy mirrors on the orbit, but their size would have to be comparable with the surface of the planet or even much bigger, as the radiation is faint. It would be challenge even for a very advanced civilization. Is there an alternative source of energy? The best broadly available source is the fusion 4H->He. How much we would need, though?
Each $m^{2}$ of the Earth's surface radiates away around 240 W in form of heat. This amount can be decreased by the greenhouse gasses, but not too much. To maintain its temperature, Earth would need $1.22 \times 10^{17}$ watts, which is an incredible amount. Even with fantastic efficiency of fusion, you would have to burn 186 kg of hydrogen per second. From the point of view of the fuel alone, it is doable, but the neccessary infrastructure would have to be a true masterpiece of technology. (Many fussion power plants, probably located under water to conduct the heat away.)
The energy could also easily come from tidal forces, if the planet orbits a gas giant or another planet. But the extreme volcanic eruptions would probably be quite aggressive way of providing the energy and containing them might be more problematic than generating the heat artificially. (Not speaking about terribly complicating task of moving the planet into a proper orbit.)
But the heat is not everything. You would probably have to make a big amount of genetic modifications to reduce light requirements of plants, or create a lot of artificial light somehow.