Rails 3.0: Release candidate
weblog.rubyonrails.org
Rails 3.0: Release candidate
1–10 of 49 posts
Re: Rails 3.0: Release candidate
#2"We’ll be making sure we get performance of Active Record back to at least 2.3 levels before release." Why call it a Release Candidate if you still plan on tweak more stuff?
Re: Rails 3.0: Release candidate
#3"We’ll be making sure we get performance of Active Record back to at least 2.3 levels before release." Why call it a Release Candidate if you still plan on tweak more stuff?
I don't think you are supposed to question DHH or what his name is.
Re: Rails 3.0: Release candidate
#4"We’ll be making sure we get performance of Active Record back to at least 2.3 levels before release." Why call it a Release Candidate if you still plan on tweak more stuff?
Because we're not going to change the interface to make the internals faster. And we might as well spend the time that the RC is out there looking for bugs to make things faster as well.
Re: Rails 3.0: Release candidate
#5"We’ll be making sure we get performance of Active Record back to at least 2.3 levels before release." Why call it a Release Candidate if you still plan on tweak more stuff?
Because we're not going to change the interface to make the internals faster. And we might as well spend the time that the RC is out there looking for bugs to make things faster as well.
This may be a source of confusion. In most circles, release candidate signifies that this should be the final release, and will only be changed if new bugs emerge.
Re: Rails 3.0: Release candidate
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because we're not going to change the interface to make the internals faster. And we might as well spend the time that the RC is out there looking for bugs to make things faster as well.
This may be a source of confusion. In most circles, release candidate signifies that this should be the final release, and will only be changed if new bugs emerge.
s/Most/All/. I've never heard of a release candidate meaning anything else, it's something you'll release as-is with a non-rc version unless critical bugs emerge. This is a beta, not a RC.
Re: Rails 3.0: Release candidate
#7"We’ll be making sure we get performance of Active Record back to at least 2.3 levels before release." Why call it a Release Candidate if you still plan on tweak more stuff?
I suspect this release is in response to some of the uproar (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1545773, albeit dead) on the Rails list about the lack of a release and general lack of communication between the core team and the community regarding when a release might be expected.
Re: Rails 3.0: Release candidate
#8Node.js is so much better, Ruby and Rails are the new Cobol.
Re: Rails 3.0: Release candidate
#9For new RoR programmers, is it recommended to just start in with Rails 3, or stick with Rails 2 until Rails 3 "stabilizes"? There are a bunch of Rails 3 books out there; do they generally line up well with this release candidate, or are they full of old information that a new RoR programmer would stumble upon and not understand how to fix?
[EDIT] The three books I saw available that specifically mention Rails 3 in the title are available for pre-order, so hopefully they will be pretty up-to-date.
Re: Rails 3.0: Release candidate
#10For new RoR programmers, is it recommended to just start in with Rails 3, or stick with Rails 2 until Rails 3 "stabilizes"? There are a bunch of Rails 3 books out there; do they generally line up well with this release candidate, or are they full of old information that a new RoR programmer would stumble upon and not understand how to fix? [EDIT] The three books I saw available that specifically mention Rails 3 in th…
I think it depends on what you're doing. If you're learning Rails just to learn it, go with Rails 3. If you're being asked to spec a Rails project, go with 2.3.8. Rails 3 isn't done cooking yet, and may potentially shift under you while you attempt to complete a project under a deadline while learning the stack - not a great choice, IMO.