3 ms·
2.3 to 3.0 is not that bad. 3.0 -> 3.2 is where the trouble will begin. 3.0 deprecates a ton of stuff in 2.3. 3.2 actually removes it all and adds in the asset
by jeremycw 12y ago
2.3 to 3.0 is not that bad. 3.0 -> 3.2 is where the trouble will begin.
3.0 deprecates a ton of stuff in 2.3. 3.2 actually removes it all and adds in the asset pipeline.
Best to not bite off more than you can chew.
- thedaniel 12y agoWe had already backported a whole bunch of of stuff to 2.3 so hopefully the 3->3.2 transition won't be so terrible.
- jrochkind1 12y agoIn my experience, Rails 2->3 was, most decidely, _that bad_. It was the most difficult and frustrating migration I've ever done, and none of the subsequent Rails migrations have been close to as terrible. (The fact that 2->3 was, like for most, also ruby 1.8 to 1.9 probably contributed)
- dasil003 12y agoFor me 3.0 -> 3.1 transition was definitely the more painful transition, because it forced me to also do 1.8 -> 1.9 at the same time due to a performance regression that made the test suite jump from 20 minutes to 2.5 hours under 1.8.
- sams99 12y agoGitHub are running 2.1.2 GitHub edition Ruby so that is a non-issue for them. 2 -> 3 migration is VERY VERY hard. 3 -> 4 should be relatively easy in comparison.