Rbenv, an unobtrusive rvm replacement

Re:Rbenv, an unobtrusive rvm replacement by bonzoesc on Thursday August 11, 2011 @05:44PM (#2874967)

I don't see a pressing need to use RVM in production; when I deploy, I pick a Ruby version and stick with it unless there's a security issue, at which point I pull the updated REE package from Phusion/let Heroku figure it out.

Considering the many times I've seen RVM installs fail due to checked-in broken code, I'd hardly call it "production ready" either.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rbenv, an unobtrusive rvm replacement by xentronium on Thursday August 11, 2011 @06:23PM (#2875086)

> I don't see a pressing need to use RVM in production

1. Gemset isolation comes in handy.

2. Sometimes you want to have multiple ruby versions (e.g. MRI for app and JRuby for memory heavy script)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rbenv, an unobtrusive rvm replacement by alrs on Thursday August 11, 2011 @06:59PM (#2875195)

Debian allows you to install ruby MRI and jruby simultaneously.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rbenv, an unobtrusive rvm replacement by moe on Thursday August 11, 2011 @07:27PM (#2875290)

Recommending RVM for production use is hilarious.

Recommending debian-ruby for production use is bordering on physical injury.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rbenv, an unobtrusive rvm replacement by burke on Thursday August 11, 2011 @11:45PM (#2875900)

> Recommending RVM for production use is hilarious.

That's a pretty inflammatory, unsubstantiated opinion. Any reason?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rbenv, an unobtrusive rvm replacement by cdcarter on Friday August 12, 2011 @02:28AM (#2876209)

Likely the reason was "to make the joke work."

And also that RVM is a development tool, and the overhead it adds to production is silly.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rbenv, an unobtrusive rvm replacement by nirvdrum on Thursday August 11, 2011 @06:19PM (#2875078)

The complete lack of a changelog doesn't help either. I never know whether something's going to break in a new release and almost every new release has some little semantic change that borks my system.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rbenv, an unobtrusive rvm replacement by SpikeGronim on Thursday August 11, 2011 @06:24PM (#2875089)

I have to use rvm in production because debian/ubuntu install ruby 1.8 and I need 1.9.2 for rails 3. Ruby isn't in the alternatives system (yet - coming soon) so I don't see a better way.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rbenv, an unobtrusive rvm replacement by boz666 on Tuesday August 16, 2011 @07:20PM (#2893313)

Installing 1.9.2 from source if it is in fact not in the repos is far better then using RVM.

Using RVM anywhere is suboptimal, but using it in production is lunacy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rbenv, an unobtrusive rvm replacement by alrs on Thursday August 11, 2011 @06:57PM (#2875192)

apt-get install ruby1.9. It's in there.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rbenv, an unobtrusive rvm replacement by sanderjd on Thursday August 11, 2011 @07:18PM (#2875264)

1.9.1 is there, 1.9.2 is not. But I still the the better solution is to build from source on each machine, or create a custom 1.9.2 package for the machines you will be using. As other comments have pointed out, RVM is held together with string and duct tape and breaks frequently. I haven't dug into the code from this project, but being more testable and maintainable would be one of the biggest wins they could achieve from my point of view.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rbenv, an unobtrusive rvm replacement by nona on Thursday August 11, 2011 @07:53PM (#2875345)

I have to contradict you (unless I'm misunderstanding you): the debian package named ruby1.9.1 is actually 1.9.2. The 1.9.1 refers to the ruby ABI. Blame the ruby devs for breaking the ABI in a minor version update (1.9.0 -> 1.9.[12]).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rbenv, an unobtrusive rvm replacement by sstephenson on Thursday August 11, 2011 @07:31PM (#2875302)

That's the goal, and that's why rbenv does not perform compilation/installation at all (there's a separate ruby-build project for that: https://github.com/sstephenson/ruby-build).

[ Parent | on HN ]