[Rails] Re: RoR 2.3.5

2012-06-14 Thread pepe
If you can, upgrade, especially if your app is developed for Windows. I 
have developed several apps in 2.x and they are increasingly becoming a 
nightmare to maintain. Most of the better gems I've wanted to use work only 
under Rails 3 and the alternatives are usually not good. I am currently 
upgrading an app from 2.3.5 to Rails 3 and although there are challenges 
there has been nothing I couldn't do easier and better in Rails 3, which 
has helped to clean up the code quite a bit.

On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 12:36:04 AM UTC-4, Rick Bychowski wrote:

 I am evaluating an application that runs on RoR 2.3.5. What are the 
 liabilities of an application that is based on this older version of RoR? I 
 am concerned about security and ease of development. How common is this in 
 the Rails world?

 TIA


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby 
on Rails: Talk group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rubyonrails-talk/-/liWGKBv8YygJ.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.



[Rails] Re: RoR 2.3.5

2012-06-13 Thread Frederick Cheung


On Jun 13, 5:36 am, Rick Bychowski wrink...@gmail.com wrote:
 I am evaluating an application that runs on RoR 2.3.5. What are the
 liabilities of an application that is based on this older version of RoR? I
 am concerned about security and ease of development. How common is this in
 the Rails world?


The latest version of 2.3.x is 2.3.14 or so. This should be easy to
update to and includes security updates if I remember correctly.
2.3.x is no longer receiving updates (security or otherwise) and a lot
of the popular libraries / plugins are dropping support for 2.3 and
moving to 3.x only. The 2.3 to 3.x migration can
be quite a bit of work too.

Fred

-- 
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 rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.



Re: [Rails] Re: RoR 2.3.5

2012-06-13 Thread Walter McGinnis
On Jun 13, 2012, at 6:35 PM, Frederick Cheung frederick.che...@gmail.com 
wrote:

 
 
 On Jun 13, 5:36 am, Rick Bychowski wrink...@gmail.com wrote:
 I am evaluating an application that runs on RoR 2.3.5. What are the
 liabilities of an application that is based on this older version of RoR? I
 am concerned about security and ease of development. How common is this in
 the Rails world?
 
 
 The latest version of 2.3.x is 2.3.14 or so. This should be easy to
 update to and includes security updates if I remember correctly.
 2.3.x is no longer receiving updates (security or otherwise) and a lot
 of the popular libraries / plugins are dropping support for 2.3 and
 moving to 3.x only. The 2.3 to 3.x migration can
 be quite a bit of work 

Hi,

I'm the maintainer of an open source app that is still on 2.3.5 
(http://kete.net.nz). As time progresses it definitely becomes more difficult 
and being behind becomes a form of technical debt, but that isn't the whole 
picture.

If your codebase is large, upgrades of the underlying version of Rails can be 
non-trivial. For quite awhile versions of 2.3.x above 2.3.5 changed pretty 
rapidly. It seemed to be a fairly bumpy road.

The obstacles to upgrading are specific to your code. Something that is not a 
big deal for others may stop you from proceeding. It really depends.

You have to weigh the value upgrading will give you (erasing some forms of 
technical debt, new features, etc.) vs the effort necessary to upgrade and its 
side effects (destabilizing your codebase).

It also hinges on resources available and priorities. Time spent upgrading that 
may not have benefits that are visible to a paying client is not spent on 
features that delivers obvious value. In other words you may have to expend 
more effort even justifying the work to upgrade.

At the same time, Rails has been fairly good over the long haul about providing 
tools for 'freezing' an application's environment. Often you can simply stick 
with what is already working.

So yeah, not ideal, but it's only part of the picture. Does the application 
give you the features you need? Is the codebase active? What's the developer 
community like? How's the documentation? You get the idea.

Cheers,
Walter 

-- 
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 rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.