On 4/12/11 02:49, "Phil Dobbin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3/12/11 20:04, "Colin Law" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> In addition I would seriously question the use of 2.3 versus 3.1. 2.3 >> is only receiving security fixes now I believe (not bug fixes) and it >> is not trivial to update an app from 2.3 to 3. If the app is expected >> to have a significant life then using 2.3 just because the server is >> currently geared up for that is surely a questionable decision. > > I have mentioned to the party involved that getting the web hosting people to > upgrade is a very good idea partly because I'm just cutting my teeth on rails > & all the work I've done so far has been on v.3 & I also thought that the > hosting company will get a memo from HQ saying all the servers are getting an > upgrade & it'll leave me, as you said, upgrading a live site. > > I think I'll be more adamant with the client about this & explain as well as I > can the circumstances to her. Unfortunately, she's not at all computer-minded > shall we say... Just as a follow-up to this thread, the web hosting company are telling me in order to get rails v.3 I have to go down the dedicated server route. Don't think the client is going to stand an extra £180 a month on the bill... Cheers, Phil. -- Nothing to see here... move along, move along -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
