3 ms·

> As someone who has experience working with large codebases, I am thoroughly impressed by GitHub's approach to upgrading their Ruby on Rails monolith. It is cl

> As someone who has experience working with large codebases, I am thoroughly impressed by GitHub's approach to upgrading their Ruby on Rails monolith. It is clear that the GitHub team has invested a significant amount of time and resources to ensure that their application runs on the latest version of Rails and Ruby, and this has resulted in real tangible benefits such as better database connection handling, faster view rendering, and improved security posture. To be fair, they did spend years not adding features. (Only really starting to add features when the Dear GitHub letter came out) It seems like they spent that time wisely just investing in stuff like this. GitHub are in a unique position where they spent so long ignoring features while having a large team. I feel like for the majority of teams these sort of investments are rarely possible because feature work is required.

irjustin 4y ago
I down voted because it just seems like you wanted to being up the dear GitHub. It's been years... 7? with great features that go well beyond the letter. Yes gh was stagnant but this is pretty well in the past and your points have almost no current relevance.
- that_guy_iain 4y ago
  > I down voted because it just seems like you wanted to being up the dear GitHub. I only brought up dear GitHub because I am sure people wouldn't have had an idea what I was talking about. > Yes gh was stagnant but this is pretty well in the past and your points have almost no current relevance. When my point is they used a bunch of time that other companies wouldn't give to build a solid foundation it seems very much that the past, that being the foundation, is very relevant. My entire point, is that they're in a very unique position a position that others can't really fairly expect since very few companies are able to ignore features for such a long time. This isn't to bash github. This is to put into persective what they've done and if others can do it. It removes the whole "GitHub did it so..." thing that many will suggest down the line.

irjustin 4y ago

I down voted because it just seems like you wanted to being up the dear GitHub. It's been years... 7? with great features that go well beyond the letter. Yes gh was stagnant but this is pretty well in the past and your points have almost no current relevance.

that_guy_iain 4y ago
> I down voted because it just seems like you wanted to being up the dear GitHub. I only brought up dear GitHub because I am sure people wouldn't have had an idea what I was talking about. > Yes gh was stagnant but this is pretty well in the past and your points have almost no current relevance. When my point is they used a bunch of time that other companies wouldn't give to build a solid foundation it seems very much that the past, that being the foundation, is very relevant. My entire point, is that they're in a very unique position a position that others can't really fairly expect since very few companies are able to ignore features for such a long time. This isn't to bash github. This is to put into persective what they've done and if others can do it. It removes the whole "GitHub did it so..." thing that many will suggest down the line.