3 ms·

We are precisely in that process, where one of our apps (Ruby 1.8.7+Rails 2.1, originally Ruby<1.8+Rails 1.x) has been forked at some point. Due to various mish

by lloeki 14y ago

We are precisely in that process, where one of our apps (Ruby 1.8.7+Rails 2.1, originally Ruby<1.8+Rails 1.x) has been forked at some point. Due to various mishaps, the main, generic branch got so rotten that we're simply dropping it and built a brand new version, but the customer-specific, simpler fork is deemed "recoverable" (although there's a good pile of code worthy of TDWTF it's miles better than in the main branch). We're currently cleaning up all the WTFs, "delet[ing] as much code upfront as [we] can", and the next step is dropping 1.8.7 in favor of 1.9.3, and subsequently bump to Rails 3. That's still a long winded road ahead.

wincent 14y ago
FWIW, we did this in the opposite order (first Rails 3/3.2, then Ruby 1.9). The bigger wins in developer productivity and access to shiny new toys are to be had by jumping to the latest Rails version. Updating Ruby is just the icing on the cake.
- damncabbage 14y ago
  Definitely agreed. I'm working on a 1.8.7 site for the last six months, and it's been perfectly workable. Some gems do make the assumption of 1.9, though, which can suck. (We just upgraded to 1.9.3)
  - Argorak 14y ago
    I recently dropped all official 1.8.7-support for all my projects. Informally, most of them should still work (tm). 1.8.7 is past its EOL and will only receive security fixes until next year. Not having a migration planned for the near future is reckless.
    - damncabbage 14y ago
      Not having a migration planned for the near future is reckless. I'd argue that doing both a Rails 2 -> 3 upgrade at the same time as a Ruby 1.8.7 -> 1.9 upgrade is more reckless. I do agree that it would need to happen damn soon, though, but not concurrently.
  - lloeki 14y ago
    Thanks for the valuable feedback. We're not quite there yet so we might change the order of things.
- dansingerman 14y ago
  But a lot of those shiny toys are probably going to be barriers to upgrading to a later rails version. "Be careful about adding gems, especially those with dependencies" and "Wooo - shiny toys" - are somewhat contradictory.

by lloeki 14y ago

wincent 14y ago

FWIW, we did this in the opposite order (first Rails 3/3.2, then Ruby 1.9). The bigger wins in developer productivity and access to shiny new toys are to be had by jumping to the latest Rails version. Updating Ruby is just the icing on the cake.

damncabbage 14y ago
Definitely agreed. I'm working on a 1.8.7 site for the last six months, and it's been perfectly workable. Some gems do make the assumption of 1.9, though, which can suck. (We just upgraded to 1.9.3)
- Argorak 14y ago
  I recently dropped all official 1.8.7-support for all my projects. Informally, most of them should still work (tm). 1.8.7 is past its EOL and will only receive security fixes until next year. Not having a migration planned for the near future is reckless.
  - damncabbage 14y ago
    Not having a migration planned for the near future is reckless. I'd argue that doing both a Rails 2 -> 3 upgrade at the same time as a Ruby 1.8.7 -> 1.9 upgrade is more reckless. I do agree that it would need to happen damn soon, though, but not concurrently.
- lloeki 14y ago
  Thanks for the valuable feedback. We're not quite there yet so we might change the order of things.
dansingerman 14y ago
But a lot of those shiny toys are probably going to be barriers to upgrading to a later rails version. "Be careful about adding gems, especially those with dependencies" and "Wooo - shiny toys" - are somewhat contradictory.