3 ms·

I have an issue with your point #2: how does the app end-users ends up with new features when bumping a minor version of the framework behind the app ? Aren't

I have an issue with your point #2: how does the app end-users ends up with new features when bumping a minor version of the framework behind the app ? Aren't the end-users of Rails the developers and not the end users of the app ?

awj 13y ago
Best example I have is that Rails 3.0 -> 3.1 included the asset pipeline, which enabled some pretty nice speed improvements by making better use of the browser's caching system and minimizing the number of file downloads required for css/javascript. That said, yeah, that is why I was wishy-washy on that suggestion. The payoff in minor version upgrades is keeping on top of upcoming deprecations, which minimizes future upgrade costs. > Aren't the end-users of Rails the developers and not the end users of the app ? Developers don't work in a vacuum. Many "developer niceties" of Rails translate into reduced end-user costs due to faster time to execute change requests. This is an important thing, but it's also hard for both sides of the transaction to quantify.