On 04 Dec 2011, at 19:26, Phil Dobbin 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...
Seems to me you're dealing with a £6 for unlimited space and unlimited
bandwidth kind of hosting company. Good enough (although I would even
doubt that) for a personal blog, not fit for anything else, you get
what you pay for. You can get proper VPS hosting for a lot less than a
dedicated server will cost you, like Linode. Or you could just make it
easy on yourself and use Heroku.
Best regards
Peter De Berdt
--
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.
