5 ms·
Well Ruby is too. If something worked on 1.9 it works on 2.3.
by dham 11y ago
Well Ruby is too. If something worked on 1.9 it works on 2.3.
- yxhuvud 11y agoYeah? Try rails 3.2.17 which work perfectly on ruby 1.9 and see how well it works on 2.2. (java is not fully backwards compatible either, but it may be a bit more tolerant in some cases)
- briandear 11y agoRails isn't ruby.
- fuzzygroove 11y agoIt's Ruby on Rails
- yxhuvud 11y agoDid I claim that? However, it is written in ruby and as such it is a valid counterexample to the claim in the comment I commented on.
- breckenedge 11y agoI've done the work before to make rails 3.2 work on 2.2. I recall the problem is due to a breaking Bcrypt name change and Yaml serialization, and it's a one line patch. The maintainers are aware of the issue but held back so as to not break every 3.2 installation on a minor upgrade (would have to be called Rails 3.3 for semver?). Rails 4.0 isnt that hard of an upgrade path if you include the attraccessible gem.
- yxhuvud 11y agoIt took quite a while before rails released a version of 3.2 that worked. As for how fun upgrading to rails4 is, you obviously don't have a project with 200 database tables that has models using the attr_protected for the five columns (appwide) that actually need it. Forced whitelisting is not fun, regardless of if it is on model or controller level.