7 ms·

Rails 3.0: Release candidate

135 points by mrduncan 16y ago

dirtyhand 16y ago
"We’ll be making sure we get performance of Active Record back to at least 2.3 levels before release." Why call it a Release Candidate if you still plan on tweak more stuff?
- sigzero 16y ago
  I don't think you are supposed to question DHH or what his name is.
  - sigzero 16y ago
    Wow, ok. It was an attempt at humor. So now my question is is HN not the place for that? Or do HN folks generally get behind RoR? Or...do I just need to be more thoughtful and not thoughtless in my postings? Help me be a better HN commentator, please.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - JangoSteve 16y ago
      If you get down-modded to 0, then you know you did something wrong. Humor is typically hit or miss, sometimes it kills, sometimes it doesn't. That being said, it is an online community and standard mob-rule still applies. I wouldn't dwell on a -4 too much (especially if no one will even comment to tell you why they down-modded). It happens, and no you're not a bad person ;-)
      - ramchip 16y ago
        Yes, and it is my impression that the downmodding has become very aggressive recently. It's not for rude posts only anymore. Just looking at the above poster: he adds a polite request for explanations to improve his posting, and yet his reply gets brought down.
        jawngee 16y ago
        Agreed * 100
    - detst 16y ago
      Humor is often OK. I suspect the problem here is that your comment can be taken in an antagonistic tone that many people have in regards to DHH and the 37signals philosophy. That sort of tone is generally not accepted here, especially as a one-liner without substance.
      - blantonl 16y ago
        I read that as "that sort of tone is generally not accepted here in regards to the 37signals philosophy."
        detst 16y ago
        It was meant as that sort of tone is generally not accepted toward anyone/anything, especially as a one-liner because it doesn't add anything to the discussion. It was probably perceived that way because there are many people that have that sort of attitude toward DHH and 37signals. So any intent of humor was lost. It has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement with their philosophy.
        sigzero 16y ago
        Okay, I get that. It really didn't bring anything to the table. I will remember that. It wasn't meant to be antagonistic though. Just for the record.
      - bbwharris 16y ago
        In other words, this isn't reddit.
        bbwharris 16y ago
        My point goes deeper - reddit hates RoR. Mention ruby and you will be trampled. The OP is seemingly negative on Ruby (which is cleared up through subsequent comments) and he gets trampled. When I say "this isn't reddit" I mean, there isn't the same RoR hatred here that one notices there. That's all.
    - jawngee 16y ago
      About a year ago, yes, that would have been good, but HN has sort of been overrun by a gang of douche bags since then, so no, try not to be funny.
- dhh 16y ago
  Because we're not going to change the interface to make the internals faster. And we might as well spend the time that the RC is out there looking for bugs to make things faster as well.
  - sandofsky 16y ago
    This may be a source of confusion. In most circles, release candidate signifies that this should be the final release, and will only be changed if new bugs emerge.
    - avar 16y ago
      s/Most/All/. I've never heard of a release candidate meaning anything else, it's something you'll release as-is with a non-rc version unless critical bugs emerge. This is a beta, not a RC.
      - jolan 16y ago
        Think of it as a Rework Candidate then.
    - bobbyi 16y ago
      The exact meaning of terms like "beta" is subjective, but "release candidate" has the it right there in the name. It's not a release candidate if you literally state that it is not a candidate for release.
      - blaix 16y ago
        Exactly. Not to mention if you know you're going to be working on it, there's always the chance new bugs can emerge as a result. If I install the final version I'd expect that means it's the exact same version as the most recent release candidate and no critical bugs were found during that period. Not the most recent release candidate, plus a bunch of tweaks that were made while everyone was testing. And if you're already assuming there will be another release candidate before a final, then this isn't a release candidate.
- rufugee 16y ago
  I suspect this release is in response to some of the uproar (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1545773 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1545773, albeit dead) on the Rails list about the lack of a release and general lack of communication between the core team and the community regarding when a release might be expected.
  - dhh 16y ago
    Heh, if only it was that easy to get a release of Rails to happen! I'd use that more often myself. This release happened because we have a candidate that's close enough to release that we wanted to get it out.
toadytim 16y ago
Node.js is so much better, Ruby and Rails are the new Cobol.
pedoh 16y ago
For new RoR programmers, is it recommended to just start in with Rails 3, or stick with Rails 2 until Rails 3 "stabilizes"? There are a bunch of Rails 3 books out there; do they generally line up well with this release candidate, or are they full of old information that a new RoR programmer would stumble upon and not understand how to fix? [EDIT] The three books I saw available that specifically mention Rails 3 in the title are available for pre-order, so hopefully they will be pretty up-to-date.
- cheald 16y ago
  I think it depends on what you're doing. If you're learning Rails just to learn it, go with Rails 3. If you're being asked to spec a Rails project, go with 2.3.8. Rails 3 isn't done cooking yet, and may potentially shift under you while you attempt to complete a project under a deadline while learning the stack - not a great choice, IMO.
  - dhh 16y ago
    Rails 3 is now done cooking from a feature perspective. That's why this release is a release candidate, not a beta or alpha. Rails 3 is the way to go for new projects.
- fuzzythinker 16y ago
  I got "rails 3 way" and "agile rails 4.ed". rails3way is pretty much a complete rewrite; its only 266 pages filled so far, but looks good. Agile rails is more finished than rails3way. They are both pretty good books, but if you want more of a "completed" book, agile seems to be the one closer to that. I'm learning RoR from scratch too. The recommended setup is to use ruby 1.9.2. Your first question really depends on what is your intention. If your primary focus is for job hunting, 2 may be the way to go. If you're trying to build something, I don't see much drawbacks (yet) on going to 3.
  - jakemoffatt 16y ago
    Go to Rails 3, a lot of the ways of doing things in 2.X will be deprecated in 3.1 and removed in 3.2, so just save yourself the hassle. Rails 3 also cleans up a tremendous amount of code and removes a lot of the 'obtrusive' Javascript from your views. As far as 1.9.2, if you plan to do deployment (Even for testing) any time soon on Heroku (the coolest, if not the best hosting solution for Rails) then you may want to kick back to 1.8.7, because Heroku won't support 1.9.2 until a final is released.
davidw 16y ago
I haven't had a look at 3.0 yet. What's the effort like to upgrade? I have this suspicion that it's basically going to be a major rewrite for most of my projects with all the new apis and deprecation. It's almost as if it were a completely separate project that offered some degree of Rails compatibility to help people transition. However, that's the impression I get from reading things - how is it in practice for those who have updated significant code bases?
- ekidd 16y ago
  The core Rails APIs are mostly the same, though you'll have to basically rewrite a couple of files in config/. I'm currently porting a moderately large application from 2.3, and few of the remaining unit test failures have anything to do with the Rails core. Your biggest problem will be that a number of third-party gems have been heavily updated for ActiveSupport 3.0, including RSpec, Devise and Mongoid, and these may cause more headaches than Rails itself. Figure a few days of updating stuff and staring at unit test failures if you rely heavily on these gems. Of course, all bets are off if you use a lot of dodgy, unmaintained gems that heavily monkey-patch Rails. We have a pretty strict policy against using dubious minor gems that stick their fingers deep inside Rails, after some bad experiences over the past couple of years.
- hitonagashi 16y ago
  You've got to be careful with Ruby versions. Rails 3 runs on 1.8.7 and 1.9.2. My machine before was running on 1.8.6 and 1.9.1 (okay, I'm lazy!), but luckily RVM simplified the upgrade for me. If you are still running on 1.8.6, it's something to bear in mind :).
guywithabike 16y ago
What's the upgrade path like from Merb?
- raystar 16y ago
  Quite simple, I rewrote a medium sized app in about a day, and actually fixed a few things too. I found it really easy to upgrade from either rails 2.3.x or merb.

135 points by mrduncan 16y ago

"We’ll be making sure we get performance of Active Record back to at least 2.3 levels before release." Why call it a Release Candidate if you still plan on tweak more stuff?

sigzero 16y ago
I don't think you are supposed to question DHH or what his name is.
- sigzero 16y ago
  Wow, ok. It was an attempt at humor. So now my question is is HN not the place for that? Or do HN folks generally get behind RoR? Or...do I just need to be more thoughtful and not thoughtless in my postings? Help me be a better HN commentator, please.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - JangoSteve 16y ago
    If you get down-modded to 0, then you know you did something wrong. Humor is typically hit or miss, sometimes it kills, sometimes it doesn't. That being said, it is an online community and standard mob-rule still applies. I wouldn't dwell on a -4 too much (especially if no one will even comment to tell you why they down-modded). It happens, and no you're not a bad person ;-)
    - ramchip 16y ago
      Yes, and it is my impression that the downmodding has become very aggressive recently. It's not for rude posts only anymore. Just looking at the above poster: he adds a polite request for explanations to improve his posting, and yet his reply gets brought down.
      - jawngee 16y ago
        Agreed * 100
  - detst 16y ago
    Humor is often OK. I suspect the problem here is that your comment can be taken in an antagonistic tone that many people have in regards to DHH and the 37signals philosophy. That sort of tone is generally not accepted here, especially as a one-liner without substance.
    - blantonl 16y ago
      I read that as "that sort of tone is generally not accepted here in regards to the 37signals philosophy."
      - detst 16y ago
        It was meant as that sort of tone is generally not accepted toward anyone/anything, especially as a one-liner because it doesn't add anything to the discussion. It was probably perceived that way because there are many people that have that sort of attitude toward DHH and 37signals. So any intent of humor was lost. It has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement with their philosophy.
        sigzero 16y ago
        Okay, I get that. It really didn't bring anything to the table. I will remember that. It wasn't meant to be antagonistic though. Just for the record.
    - bbwharris 16y ago
      In other words, this isn't reddit.
      - bbwharris 16y ago
        My point goes deeper - reddit hates RoR. Mention ruby and you will be trampled. The OP is seemingly negative on Ruby (which is cleared up through subsequent comments) and he gets trampled. When I say "this isn't reddit" I mean, there isn't the same RoR hatred here that one notices there. That's all.
  - jawngee 16y ago
    About a year ago, yes, that would have been good, but HN has sort of been overrun by a gang of douche bags since then, so no, try not to be funny.
dhh 16y ago
Because we're not going to change the interface to make the internals faster. And we might as well spend the time that the RC is out there looking for bugs to make things faster as well.
- sandofsky 16y ago
  This may be a source of confusion. In most circles, release candidate signifies that this should be the final release, and will only be changed if new bugs emerge.
  - avar 16y ago
    s/Most/All/. I've never heard of a release candidate meaning anything else, it's something you'll release as-is with a non-rc version unless critical bugs emerge. This is a beta, not a RC.
    - jolan 16y ago
      Think of it as a Rework Candidate then.
  - bobbyi 16y ago
    The exact meaning of terms like "beta" is subjective, but "release candidate" has the it right there in the name. It's not a release candidate if you literally state that it is not a candidate for release.
    - blaix 16y ago
      Exactly. Not to mention if you know you're going to be working on it, there's always the chance new bugs can emerge as a result. If I install the final version I'd expect that means it's the exact same version as the most recent release candidate and no critical bugs were found during that period. Not the most recent release candidate, plus a bunch of tweaks that were made while everyone was testing. And if you're already assuming there will be another release candidate before a final, then this isn't a release candidate.
rufugee 16y ago
I suspect this release is in response to some of the uproar (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1545773 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1545773, albeit dead) on the Rails list about the lack of a release and general lack of communication between the core team and the community regarding when a release might be expected.
- dhh 16y ago
  Heh, if only it was that easy to get a release of Rails to happen! I'd use that more often myself. This release happened because we have a candidate that's close enough to release that we wanted to get it out.

toadytim 16y ago

Node.js is so much better, Ruby and Rails are the new Cobol.

pedoh 16y ago

For new RoR programmers, is it recommended to just start in with Rails 3, or stick with Rails 2 until Rails 3 "stabilizes"? There are a bunch of Rails 3 books out there; do they generally line up well with this release candidate, or are they full of old information that a new RoR programmer would stumble upon and not understand how to fix? [EDIT] The three books I saw available that specifically mention Rails 3 in the title are available for pre-order, so hopefully they will be pretty up-to-date.

cheald 16y ago
I think it depends on what you're doing. If you're learning Rails just to learn it, go with Rails 3. If you're being asked to spec a Rails project, go with 2.3.8. Rails 3 isn't done cooking yet, and may potentially shift under you while you attempt to complete a project under a deadline while learning the stack - not a great choice, IMO.
- dhh 16y ago
  Rails 3 is now done cooking from a feature perspective. That's why this release is a release candidate, not a beta or alpha. Rails 3 is the way to go for new projects.
fuzzythinker 16y ago
I got "rails 3 way" and "agile rails 4.ed". rails3way is pretty much a complete rewrite; its only 266 pages filled so far, but looks good. Agile rails is more finished than rails3way. They are both pretty good books, but if you want more of a "completed" book, agile seems to be the one closer to that. I'm learning RoR from scratch too. The recommended setup is to use ruby 1.9.2. Your first question really depends on what is your intention. If your primary focus is for job hunting, 2 may be the way to go. If you're trying to build something, I don't see much drawbacks (yet) on going to 3.
- jakemoffatt 16y ago
  Go to Rails 3, a lot of the ways of doing things in 2.X will be deprecated in 3.1 and removed in 3.2, so just save yourself the hassle. Rails 3 also cleans up a tremendous amount of code and removes a lot of the 'obtrusive' Javascript from your views. As far as 1.9.2, if you plan to do deployment (Even for testing) any time soon on Heroku (the coolest, if not the best hosting solution for Rails) then you may want to kick back to 1.8.7, because Heroku won't support 1.9.2 until a final is released.

davidw 16y ago

I haven't had a look at 3.0 yet. What's the effort like to upgrade? I have this suspicion that it's basically going to be a major rewrite for most of my projects with all the new apis and deprecation. It's almost as if it were a completely separate project that offered some degree of Rails compatibility to help people transition. However, that's the impression I get from reading things - how is it in practice for those who have updated significant code bases?

ekidd 16y ago
The core Rails APIs are mostly the same, though you'll have to basically rewrite a couple of files in config/. I'm currently porting a moderately large application from 2.3, and few of the remaining unit test failures have anything to do with the Rails core. Your biggest problem will be that a number of third-party gems have been heavily updated for ActiveSupport 3.0, including RSpec, Devise and Mongoid, and these may cause more headaches than Rails itself. Figure a few days of updating stuff and staring at unit test failures if you rely heavily on these gems. Of course, all bets are off if you use a lot of dodgy, unmaintained gems that heavily monkey-patch Rails. We have a pretty strict policy against using dubious minor gems that stick their fingers deep inside Rails, after some bad experiences over the past couple of years.
hitonagashi 16y ago
You've got to be careful with Ruby versions. Rails 3 runs on 1.8.7 and 1.9.2. My machine before was running on 1.8.6 and 1.9.1 (okay, I'm lazy!), but luckily RVM simplified the upgrade for me. If you are still running on 1.8.6, it's something to bear in mind :).

guywithabike 16y ago

What's the upgrade path like from Merb?

raystar 16y ago
Quite simple, I rewrote a medium sized app in about a day, and actually fixed a few things too. I found it really easy to upgrade from either rails 2.3.x or merb.