News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Rbenv 1.0.0 by yxhuvud on Friday December 25, 2015 @08:39PM (#10792937)
Yeah? Try rails 3.2.17 which work perfectly on ruby 1.9 and see how well it works on 2.2.

(java is not fully backwards compatible either, but it may be a bit more tolerant in some cases)

Re:Rbenv 1.0.0 by breckenedge on Saturday December 26, 2015 @09:05AM (#10794136)
I've done the work before to make rails 3.2 work on 2.2. I recall the problem is due to a breaking Bcrypt name change and Yaml serialization, and it's a one line patch. The maintainers are aware of the issue but held back so as to not break every 3.2 installation on a minor upgrade (would have to be called Rails 3.3 for semver?). Rails 4.0 isnt that hard of an upgrade path if you include the attraccessible gem.
Re:Rbenv 1.0.0 by yxhuvud on Tuesday December 29, 2015 @05:24AM (#10806056)
It took quite a while before rails released a version of 3.2 that worked.

As for how fun upgrading to rails4 is, you obviously don't have a project with 200 database tables that has models using the attr_protected for the five columns (appwide) that actually need it. Forced whitelisting is not fun, regardless of if it is on model or controller level.

Re:Rbenv 1.0.0 by briandear on Saturday December 26, 2015 @02:35AM (#10793583)
Rails isn't ruby.
Re:Rbenv 1.0.0 by yxhuvud on Saturday December 26, 2015 @04:50AM (#10793756)
Did I claim that? However, it is written in ruby and as such it is a valid counterexample to the claim in the comment I commented on.
Re:Rbenv 1.0.0 by fuzzygroove on Saturday December 26, 2015 @04:20AM (#10793728)
It's Ruby on Rails