This is a very interesting cautionary tail for those who recommend Rails because Github uses it. It's hard to imagine another core framework where the "best" wa

This is a very interesting cautionary tail for those who recommend Rails because Github uses it. It's hard to imagine another core framework where the "best" way to use it is to dedicate an entire department to continuously working off the bleeding edge. And if you read between the lines, changes that Github needs to make are within Rails itself, and as we know there are core Ruby and Rails maintainers working at Github. This is a cautionary tale because of how much overhead Github needs to make this work. If your company has the klout to hire core Rails maintainers and the staff to be able to focus on working off the main branch of one of your framework dependencies, then go for it! You should also read about Github's history with "Rails" and how challenging it was for them to make it fast enough for them and upgrade it. It's pretty interesting they got around that "challenge" by throwing a LOT more resources at it. It's interesting because this isn't usually a challenge with other major framework upgrades. It makes sense you would need this much investment given the hyper-dynamic dangers of Ruby (not just the language, but the ecosystem), making it difficult and risky to upgrade. TL;DR the advice in this blog post does not seem applicable to most companies.