What's the upgrade path like from Merb?
Rails 3.0: Release candidate
31–40 of 49 posts
Re: Rails 3.0: Release candidate
#32What's the upgrade path like from Merb?
Quite simple, I rewrote a medium sized app in about a day, and actually fixed a few things too.
I found it really easy to upgrade from either rails 2.3.x or merb.
Re: Rails 3.0: Release candidate
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Exactly. Not to mention if you know you're going to be working on it, there's always the chance new bugs can emerge as a result.
If I install the final version I'd expect that means it's the exact same version as the most recent release candidate and no critical bugs were found during that period. Not the most recent release candidate, plus a bunch of tweaks that were made while everyone was testing. And if you're already assuming there will be another release candidate before a final, then this isn't a release candidate.
Re: Rails 3.0: Release candidate
#34I 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 th…
The core Rails APIs are mostly the same, though you'll have to basically rewrite a couple of files in config/. I'm currently porting a moderately large application from 2.3, and few of the remaining unit test failures have anything to do with the Rails core.
Your biggest problem will be that a number of third-party gems have been heavily updated for ActiveSupport 3.0, including RSpec, Devise and Mongoid, and these may cause more headaches than Rails itself. Figure a few days of updating stuff and staring at unit test failures if you rely heavily on these gems.
Of course, all bets are off if you use a lot of dodgy, unmaintained gems that heavily monkey-patch Rails. We have a pretty strict policy against using dubious minor gems that stick their fingers deep inside Rails, after some bad experiences over the past couple of years.
Re: Rails 3.0: Release candidate
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The biggest two for me are massive performance increases as well as unobtrusive javascript.
Now, I haven't done any specific benchmarking with my apps yet, but the upgrade from ree to 1.9.2 seems to be fairly large from every benchmark I've seen, as well as Rails 3 itself becoming faster, due to the Merb influence.
Unobtrusive JS is awesome; I never used Rails javascript helper stuff because I prefer jQuery to Prototype, and just wrote all of that stuff by hand. Now I can actually use helpers.
Full HTML5 support is also nice, though I guess haml was already doing that for me.
Re: Rails 3.0: Release candidate
#36I 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 th…
You've got to be careful with Ruby versions.
Rails 3 runs on 1.8.7 and 1.9.2.
My machine before was running on 1.8.6 and 1.9.1 (okay, I'm lazy!), but luckily RVM simplified the upgrade for me.
If you are still running on 1.8.6, it's something to bear in mind :).
Re: Rails 3.0: Release candidate
#37Earlier 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.
From a broader perspective, I expect that the Rails versioning nomenclature will conform to SemVer (http://semver.org/). Yesterday, wycats tweeted that he believes strongly in SemVer, in regards to Bundler.
Re: Rails 3.0: Release candidate
#38Earlier 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.
If you get down-modded to 0, then you know you did something wrong. Humor is typically hit or miss, sometimes it kills, sometimes it doesn't. That being said, it is an online community and standard mob-rule still applies. I wouldn't dwell on a -4 too much (especially if no one will even comment to tell you why they down-modded). It happens, and no you're not a bad person ;-)
Yes, and it is my impression that the downmodding has become very aggressive recently. It's not for rude posts only anymore. Just looking at the above poster: he adds a polite request for explanations to improve his posting, and yet his reply gets brought down.
Re: Rails 3.0: Release candidate
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Okay, I get that. It really didn't bring anything to the table. I will remember that. It wasn't meant to be antagonistic though. Just for the record.
Re: Rails 3.0: Release candidate
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Why wouldn't you? It's faster, it'll eventually have more support from the community, and has tons of improvements which should help with your productivity.