EPEL6 Rails Version
clalance at redhat.com
Mon Dec 13 13:56:20 UTC 2010
On 12/11/10 - 08:56:54AM, Gaveen Prabhasara wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Chris Lalancette <clalance at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 12/10/10 - 01:46:31PM, Michael Stahnke wrote:
> >> I've been wondering which version of Rails we should try to put into
> >> EPEL6. Right now, obviously, Rails 2.3.x is pretty popular, however,
> >> in looking forward at a 7 year life-cycle, it seems like Rails 3 might
> >> be a good idea. My fear however, is that even the next version of
> >> Rails 3 will have abi/api breakage, so it will be very difficult to
> >> move.
> > As an FYI, I think there was some talk about putting Rails 3 into Fedora 15
> > as well. I would think that we would go with Rails 3 for both, if possible,
> > though we'd want to check out how many packages already in Fedora might break
> > if we do that.
> +1 for Rails 3 on EPEL
> Rails community tends to catch up with new Rails versions pretty quickly
> and quite often even run on Edge. So I think it's quite logical to assume
> that Rails 3 would catch up soon. I'm pretty sure Rails 3 will come to pass
> before 7 years, but for the same reason 2.3.x could be outdated long long
> before that. So 3.x, IMO.
> It'd be nice if Fedora 15 also decides on Rails 3 with Ruby 1.9.2 (and also
> have a RVM setup for those who want to use).
I'm not sure about Ruby 1.9. I think the current plan is to stick with 1.8.7
for Fedora 15. As I understand it, 1.9 has the potential to break extension
modules, so we should definitely tread lightly there. I would like a lot
more data on what packages are compatible with 1.9 before we go that route.
Having RVM is a no-brainer; it is already in Fedora :).
More information about the ruby-sig