3 ms·
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 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 agoDefinitely 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 agoI 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 agoNot 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 agoThanks for the valuable feedback. We're not quite there yet so we might change the order of things.
- dansingerman 14y agoBut 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.