6 ms·

Rails 3.0: Third beta release

57 points by icey 17y ago

rauljara 17y ago
No mention of whether it supports 1.9 again or not...
- SlyShy 17y ago
  As far as I know, it does. http://synthesis.sbecker.net/articles/2010/03/21/asset-packager-rails-3-ruby-1-9-compatible http://synthesis.sbecker.net/articles/2010/03/21/asset-packa...
- ashleyw 17y ago
  AFAIK, 1.9.1 incompatibility was due to a fault in Ruby itself, rather than Rails. And even though it seems to work with 1.9.2-head, that does have some major issues, like SEGV/Bus errors in native classes and gems alike (see http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/3132 http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/3132) I've put my Rails 3 projects on hold for a while.
  - ashleyw 17y ago
    Okay, so it appears 1.9.1 now at least doesn't crash outright. Not sure if it's 100% stable, though.
- mark_l_watson 17y ago
  I tried 3.0pre with Ruby 1.9 a while back - seemed to work OK.
  - _pius 17y ago
    The first beta works with Ruby 1.9 fine. The second doesn't. This one ...?
timmorgan 17y ago
"This one spins out a few overdue extractions into plugins" This has happened to me several times -- upgrading to a new Rails release breaks my app because things have been removed from Rails. Granted, a simple plugin install usually fixes said issue, but it's weird to me anyway. I would expect code to be improved and proven in a plugin, then ultimately integrated into the framework. Rails tends to do the opposite for some reason. Maybe someone smart can explain it to me.
- jherdman 17y ago
  The goal here is to slim down Rails as much as possible. A slim Rails means fewer moving parts, and an end product that's easier to comprehend. "Batteries included" sort of features are candidates for extraction.
  - minalecs 17y ago
    while i do agree with the thoughts leaner, smaller, modular is better.. one of my main issues with rails has always been upgrading from releases have always been a painful thing to do. It was much worse pre rails ~2 , but in general as a lean start up.. its just such a pain point, that I do wish for more stability, and better planning of deprecation of features.
    - dhh 17y ago
      If we need what we were going to do before we did it. We'll, we'd just do it then and there. Ruby code is simple enough that the process from good idea to implementation is small. That makes road maps meaningless because you can only map what you know. And if what you know can be turned into code instantly, why not do the code directly instead of writing down that you're going to do the code in the future? We do deprecate everything gracefully, though, and there'll always be a good alternative to go to. For error_messages_for, all you need to do is add 1 line to your Gemfile and you're all good. Not exactly shattering. If you find other, specific places where backwards compatibility is broken without proper deprecation or with a suitable plugin to carry you over, please report. We consider that a bug.
- 17y ago
mark_l_watson 17y ago
As a practical matter, it will be a while before I jump to 3.0. I am almost entirely on Rails 2.3.5 and Ruby 1.9.1 and that is working for me. Really it is a tradeoff between working at 100% speed right now or spending some time migrating to better tools.
- _pius 17y ago
  I've pretty much switched everything to Ruby 1.9.1 and the first Rails 3.0 beta. Works like a charm. That's why I was so disappointed to see the 3.0pre2 rely on Ruby head rather than current Ruby stable (1.9.1).
  - cmelbye 17y ago
    Is beta 3 working on Ruby 1.9?
    - wtn 17y ago
      I would tell you to read the manual, but they didn't post release notes on the rails blog this time! Anyhow, Ruby 1.9.2 is recommended.
    - rohitarondekar 17y ago
      I got a segfault on Ruby 1.9.1-p376. Check the release notes/blog post of Beta 2 - I think those same restrictions apply.
  - ionfish 17y ago
    As a matter of general principle I agree with this, but I've had so many problems with 1.9.1, I moved to 1.9.2-pre, and it's been working a lot better.
    - defen 17y ago
      What kind of problems did you have with 1.9.1? What was your deployment stack?

57 points by icey 17y ago

rauljara 17y ago

No mention of whether it supports 1.9 again or not...

SlyShy 17y ago
As far as I know, it does. http://synthesis.sbecker.net/articles/2010/03/21/asset-packager-rails-3-ruby-1-9-compatible http://synthesis.sbecker.net/articles/2010/03/21/asset-packa...
ashleyw 17y ago
AFAIK, 1.9.1 incompatibility was due to a fault in Ruby itself, rather than Rails. And even though it seems to work with 1.9.2-head, that does have some major issues, like SEGV/Bus errors in native classes and gems alike (see http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/3132 http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/3132) I've put my Rails 3 projects on hold for a while.
- ashleyw 17y ago
  Okay, so it appears 1.9.1 now at least doesn't crash outright. Not sure if it's 100% stable, though.
mark_l_watson 17y ago
I tried 3.0pre with Ruby 1.9 a while back - seemed to work OK.
- _pius 17y ago
  The first beta works with Ruby 1.9 fine. The second doesn't. This one ...?

timmorgan 17y ago

"This one spins out a few overdue extractions into plugins" This has happened to me several times -- upgrading to a new Rails release breaks my app because things have been removed from Rails. Granted, a simple plugin install usually fixes said issue, but it's weird to me anyway. I would expect code to be improved and proven in a plugin, then ultimately integrated into the framework. Rails tends to do the opposite for some reason. Maybe someone smart can explain it to me.

jherdman 17y ago
The goal here is to slim down Rails as much as possible. A slim Rails means fewer moving parts, and an end product that's easier to comprehend. "Batteries included" sort of features are candidates for extraction.
- minalecs 17y ago
  while i do agree with the thoughts leaner, smaller, modular is better.. one of my main issues with rails has always been upgrading from releases have always been a painful thing to do. It was much worse pre rails ~2 , but in general as a lean start up.. its just such a pain point, that I do wish for more stability, and better planning of deprecation of features.
  - dhh 17y ago
    If we need what we were going to do before we did it. We'll, we'd just do it then and there. Ruby code is simple enough that the process from good idea to implementation is small. That makes road maps meaningless because you can only map what you know. And if what you know can be turned into code instantly, why not do the code directly instead of writing down that you're going to do the code in the future? We do deprecate everything gracefully, though, and there'll always be a good alternative to go to. For error_messages_for, all you need to do is add 1 line to your Gemfile and you're all good. Not exactly shattering. If you find other, specific places where backwards compatibility is broken without proper deprecation or with a suitable plugin to carry you over, please report. We consider that a bug.
17y ago

mark_l_watson 17y ago

As a practical matter, it will be a while before I jump to 3.0. I am almost entirely on Rails 2.3.5 and Ruby 1.9.1 and that is working for me. Really it is a tradeoff between working at 100% speed right now or spending some time migrating to better tools.

_pius 17y ago
I've pretty much switched everything to Ruby 1.9.1 and the first Rails 3.0 beta. Works like a charm. That's why I was so disappointed to see the 3.0pre2 rely on Ruby head rather than current Ruby stable (1.9.1).
- cmelbye 17y ago
  Is beta 3 working on Ruby 1.9?
  - wtn 17y ago
    I would tell you to read the manual, but they didn't post release notes on the rails blog this time! Anyhow, Ruby 1.9.2 is recommended.
  - rohitarondekar 17y ago
    I got a segfault on Ruby 1.9.1-p376. Check the release notes/blog post of Beta 2 - I think those same restrictions apply.
- ionfish 17y ago
  As a matter of general principle I agree with this, but I've had so many problems with 1.9.1, I moved to 1.9.2-pre, and it's been working a lot better.
  - defen 17y ago
    What kind of problems did you have with 1.9.1? What was your deployment stack?