3 ms·

We updated from Rails 3 to 4 ~1 month and a half ago. Our Gemfile has 138 lines and we have ~70 models. We updated everything and did a full regression testing

We updated from Rails 3 to 4 ~1 month and a half ago. Our Gemfile has 138 lines and we have ~70 models. We updated everything and did a full regression testing to fix all the new bugs within a sprint (2 weeks) while also working on a bunch of other tasks.

bigtunacan 9y ago
This just means you had it easy. You don't feel the pain of teams that started on Rails earlier and have more complex apps. I've seen a Rails application that started on Rails 1 upgraded all the way to Rails 4, and soon will go to Rails 5. It has close to 400 models, 500K+ LOC (not including gems), almost 30 obsolete "plugins" that must be internally maintained and kept working with new versions of Rails. The upgrade from 2 to 3 took nearly a year on this project and that was with 2 people. The upgrade from 3 to 4 was roughly 6 months.
- grandalf 9y ago
  > The upgrade from 2 to 3 took nearly a year on this project and that was with 2 people. The upgrade from 3 to 4 was roughly 6 months. That is typical in my experience for a non-trivial app.
  - bigtunacan 9y ago
    Yeah; I've upgraded multiple complex Rails applications so this is not something that surprises me in the least these days. It's just people in here saying they have "moderately complex" apps that they upgraded in 2 weeks. I would say those are likely not very complex applications they are upgrading.
pmontra 9y ago
That's about what another developer and I took to move a similar app from 3.2 to 4.2. We should move it again to 5.1 as soon as the customer agrees to invest in it. I think the biggest step was between versions 2 and 3, when Gemfile appeared. Then the asset pipeline (3.1?). All considered, the time saved because of following reasonable conventions trumps the time spent upgrading. I'll be updating a Django app from 1.8 to 1.10 soon, I'll be able to compare it with upgrading Rails.

bigtunacan 9y ago

This just means you had it easy. You don't feel the pain of teams that started on Rails earlier and have more complex apps. I've seen a Rails application that started on Rails 1 upgraded all the way to Rails 4, and soon will go to Rails 5. It has close to 400 models, 500K+ LOC (not including gems), almost 30 obsolete "plugins" that must be internally maintained and kept working with new versions of Rails. The upgrade from 2 to 3 took nearly a year on this project and that was with 2 people. The upgrade from 3 to 4 was roughly 6 months.

grandalf 9y ago
> The upgrade from 2 to 3 took nearly a year on this project and that was with 2 people. The upgrade from 3 to 4 was roughly 6 months. That is typical in my experience for a non-trivial app.
- bigtunacan 9y ago
  Yeah; I've upgraded multiple complex Rails applications so this is not something that surprises me in the least these days. It's just people in here saying they have "moderately complex" apps that they upgraded in 2 weeks. I would say those are likely not very complex applications they are upgrading.

pmontra 9y ago

That's about what another developer and I took to move a similar app from 3.2 to 4.2. We should move it again to 5.1 as soon as the customer agrees to invest in it. I think the biggest step was between versions 2 and 3, when Gemfile appeared. Then the asset pipeline (3.1?). All considered, the time saved because of following reasonable conventions trumps the time spent upgrading. I'll be updating a Django app from 1.8 to 1.10 soon, I'll be able to compare it with upgrading Rails.