Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rails 3.0: Release candidate

weblog.rubyonrails.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 49 posts

Re: Rails 3.0: Release candidate

#21

Post by bobbyi »

sandofsky wrote: post #5
dhh wrote: post #4

Earlier 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.

The exact meaning of terms like "beta" is subjective, but "release candidate" has the it right there in the name.

It's not a release candidate if you literally state that it is not a candidate for release.

Re: Rails 3.0: Release candidate

#22

Post by mhartl »

milesf wrote: post #14
pedoh wrote: post #9

For 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…

The most up-to-date book is the free Rails Tutorial http://railstutorial.org , which will be updated to Rails 3 soon after it's final is released. If you have an older book using an older version of rails, DON'T use Rails 3, use the version used in your book (DHH mentioned this on an episode of coderpath http://coderpath.com/posts/1 )

There's actually a semi-secret version of the Ruby on Rails Tutorial book already updated for Rails 3.0.0.rc:

http://railstutorial.org/book?version=3.0.0.rc

Shhh... Don't tell anyone! :-)

(The official release of the Ruby on Rails 3 Tutorial book should happen some time in the next couple weeks, probably slightly ahead of the official Rails 3.0 release. Of course, the tutorial will also be updated after Rails 3.0 final drops.)

Re: Rails 3.0: Release candidate

#23

Post by detst »

sigzero wrote: post #18
sigzero wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you are supposed to question DHH or what his name is.

Wow, ok. It was an attempt at humor. So now my question is is HN not the place for that? Or do HN folks generally get behind RoR? Or...do I just need to be more thoughtful and not thoughtless in my postings? Help me be a better HN commentator, please.

Humor is often OK. I suspect the problem here is that your comment can be taken in an antagonistic tone that many people have in regards to DHH and the 37signals philosophy. That sort of tone is generally not accepted here, especially as a one-liner without substance.

Re: Rails 3.0: Release candidate

#24

Post by philwelch »

mhartl wrote: post #22
milesf wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most up-to-date book is the free Rails Tutorial http://railstutorial.org , which will be updated to Rails 3 soon after it's final is released. If you have an older book using an older version of rails, DON'T use Rails 3, use the version used in your book (DHH mentioned this on an episode of coderpath http://coderpath.com/posts/1 )

There's actually a semi-secret version of the Ruby on Rails Tutorial book already updated for Rails 3.0.0.rc: http://railstutorial.org/book?version=3.0.0.rc Shhh... Don't tell anyone! :-) (The official release of the Ruby on Rails 3 Tutorial book should happen some time in the next couple weeks, probably slightly ahead of the official Rails 3.0 release. Of course, the tutorial will also be updated after Rails 3.0 fin…

Now I have to start the tutorial all over again...but thanks! This should be a lot easier than looking up for myself how Rspec 2 works and so forth.

Re: Rails 3.0: Release candidate

#25

Post by blantonl »

ashleyw wrote: post #17
pedoh wrote: post #9

For 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 now would be an excellent time to jump into 3.0. So much has changed since 2.x, practically every Rails developer, new and old, will be blogging, tweeting, debugging and asking and answering questions on StackOverflow about Rails 3, you'd be daft to lag behind and miss the opportunity.

other than "So much has changed since 2.x," I personally think it would be great for you explain why "practically every Rails Developer" should jump in to 3.0.

Your comment is a given, right?, but other than to state the obvious, I'm curious as to your personal reasonings regarding this release.

Re: Rails 3.0: Release candidate

#26

Post by blantonl »

detst wrote: post #23
sigzero wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, ok. It was an attempt at humor. So now my question is is HN not the place for that? Or do HN folks generally get behind RoR? Or...do I just need to be more thoughtful and not thoughtless in my postings? Help me be a better HN commentator, please.

Humor is often OK. I suspect the problem here is that your comment can be taken in an antagonistic tone that many people have in regards to DHH and the 37signals philosophy. That sort of tone is generally not accepted here, especially as a one-liner without substance.

I read that as "that sort of tone is generally not accepted here in regards to the 37signals philosophy."

Re: Rails 3.0: Release candidate

#27

Post by dhh »

rufugee wrote: post #7
dirtyhand wrote: post #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?

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.

Heh, if only it was that easy to get a release of Rails to happen! I'd use that more often myself.

This release happened because we have a candidate that's close enough to release that we wanted to get it out.

Re: Rails 3.0: Release candidate

#28

Post by dhh »

cheald wrote: post #10
pedoh wrote: post #9

For 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.

Rails 3 is now done cooking from a feature perspective. That's why this release is a release candidate, not a beta or alpha.

Rails 3 is the way to go for new projects.

Re: Rails 3.0: Release candidate

#29

Post by detst »

blantonl wrote: post #26
detst wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humor is often OK. I suspect the problem here is that your comment can be taken in an antagonistic tone that many people have in regards to DHH and the 37signals philosophy. That sort of tone is generally not accepted here, especially as a one-liner without substance.

I read that as "that sort of tone is generally not accepted here in regards to the 37signals philosophy."

It was meant as that sort of tone is generally not accepted toward anyone/anything, especially as a one-liner because it doesn't add anything to the discussion. It was probably perceived that way because there are many people that have that sort of attitude toward DHH and 37signals. So any intent of humor was lost.

It has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement with their philosophy.

Re: Rails 3.0: Release candidate

#30

Post by davidw »

I haven't had a look at 3.0 yet. What's the effort like to upgrade? I have this suspicion that it's basically going to be a major rewrite for most of my projects with all the new apis and deprecation. It's almost as if it were a completely separate project that offered some degree of Rails compatibility to help people transition. However, that's the impression I get from reading things - how is it in practice for those who have updated significant code bases?
Post reply on HN