EPEL6 Rails Version

[Michael Stahnke]

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.



Thoughts?

stahnma

[Chris Lalancette]

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.

-- 
Chris Lalancette

[Gaveen Prabhasara]

On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Chris Lalancette <clalance(a)redhat.com&gt; 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before 7 years, but for the same reason 2.3.x could be outdated long long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).

>  --
>  Chris Lalancette
>  _______________________________________________
>  ruby-sig mailing list
>  ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
>  
-- 
Gaveen Prabhasara

[Chris Lalancette]

On 12/11/10 - 08:56:54AM, Gaveen Prabhasara wrote:
>  On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Chris Lalancette
> <clalance(a)redhat.com&gt; 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 :).

-- 
Chris Lalancette

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 13.12.2010 14:56, Chris Lalancette napsal(a):
>  On 12/11/10 - 08:56:54AM, Gaveen Prabhasara wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Chris Lalancette<clalance(a)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 :).
>  
Hello, I'd like to point out that http://isitruby19.com/ already 
contains list of Ruby 1.9 in/compatible gems.


Vit

[Chris Lalancette]

On 12/13/10 - 03:29:41PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>  >> 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 :).
>  >
>  
>  Hello, I'd like to point out that http://isitruby19.com/ already 
>  contains list of Ruby 1.9 in/compatible gems. 
Good resource.  The next step is to find out what ruby packages in Fedora are
1.9 compatible, and which ones need to be upgraded.

-- 
Chris Lalancette

[Mo Morsi]

  On 12/13/2010 08:56 AM, Chris Lalancette wrote:
>  On 12/11/10 - 08:56:54AM, Gaveen Prabhasara wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Chris Lalancette<clalance(a)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 :).
>  
Also +1 to rails 3.0.x in Fedora 15 and RHEL 6. I think this is the 
consensus of most people in the Fedora/Ruby community as well as 
internally at RH.

As far as ruby 1.9 there is already alot of work done to support a rpm 
which can be installed in parallel w/ the Ruby 1.8.7 one. There is more 
work TBD but IMO nothing that can't be done by F15.

   -Mo