Dead Simple Rails Deployment • Hacker News Board

Re: Dead Simple Rails Deployment

#11

Post by bdotdub » Mon, Jun 01, 2009, 3:21 PM UTC

erlanger wrote: post #5

abyssknight wrote: post #4

Article is blocked here at the office, but since playing with the Passenger/Capistrano/SVN workflow I don't think it gets much more simple than: svn commit -m "Added stuff." cap:deploy

Why would that be blocked?

Not sure about abyssknight, but they block random random things here at work (corporate america!). They've got weird rules and/or regexes for this stuff. Some of it makes no sense whatsoever

Re: Dead Simple Rails Deployment

#12

Post by JeremyChase » Mon, Jun 01, 2009, 4:51 PM UTC

tom wrote: post #10

Why not just rsync -auvz? Avoiding a small bit of initial frustration in setting up Capistrano, SSH keys etc, in order to have what feels like an easier deploy is a wonderful case of penny wise and pound foolish. Take the time, do it right, get the benefits of a real deployment. It's worth it.

I essentially do the same thing as the author, but use a shell script on the server.

Locally I do this 'git push repo master' then on the remote machine I run 'update.sh' which is here: http://pastie.org/496681

I tend to think that if you are going to bother with Capistrano you should go all the way..

Re: Dead Simple Rails Deployment

#13

Post by jcapote » Mon, Jun 01, 2009, 5:46 PM UTC

Have you heard of heroku.com

Re: Dead Simple Rails Deployment

#14

Post by matthewking » Mon, Jun 01, 2009, 5:47 PM UTC

Not sure how capistrano can be called painful, all you have to type is 'cap deploy', then you have migrations, rollbacks etc all part of it.