4 ms·
My understanding is this also happened to GitHub and they stayed on 2.3 for years, even maintaining their own fork to handle security issues once official suppo
by dasil003 11y ago
My understanding is this also happened to GitHub and they stayed on 2.3 for years, even maintaining their own fork to handle security issues once official support lapsed. I also understand they eventually realized this wasn't viable long term and made the massive effort to get over the hump.
FWIW, the memory and instrumentation improvements in Ruby 2.x alone are worth the massive effort to upgrade. Good luck!
- sandstrom 11y agoIf you want to read up on how Github transitioned, this post is useful: http://shayfrendt.com/posts/upgrading-github-to-rails-3-with-zero-downtime/ http://shayfrendt.com/posts/upgrading-github-to-rails-3-with... Getting stuck on 2.3 isn't desirable.
- brightball 11y agoOne of the projects I deal with on a daily basis is a 200k line of code monolith on 2.3. We've got a paid for version of 2.3 from a company that releases security patches for it. Everything else at the company is microservices now, but this one system still has a few million customers.
- jon-wood 11y agoYeah, we're paying for security updates to 2.3 rather than maintaining our own fork, although we do have an increasing stack of backported features. Our approach to getting off 2.3 is to extract core functionality out into smaller API driven applications, with the eventual goal of being able to turn off the monolithic 2.3 based application.