False dichotomy. There is no technical debt. Both Ruby 1.9.3 and Ruby 2 are functional and used in production. It will take some time to totally move to 2, and when that happens, there will be applications on different release versions of 2. I don't want to wait for os packaging to use a new ruby release, and I don't want to be forced by the packaging to use a particular version(older or newer).
> I don't work in a Ruby shop anymore, but I'd look at Bundler
Um. I use Bundler along with rvm.
> maintaining multiple gemsets on the same machine is an antipattern that points to technical debt.
Having a restriction of not more than one app on one machine is as stupid as it gets.
False dichotomy. There is no technical debt. Both Ruby 1.9.3 and Ruby 2 are functional and used in production. It will take some time to totally move to 2, and when that happens, there will be applications on different release versions of 2. I don't want to wait for os packaging to use a new ruby release, and I don't want to be forced by the packaging to use a particular version(older or newer).
> I don't work in a Ruby shop anymore, but I'd look at Bundler
Um. I use Bundler along with rvm.
> maintaining multiple gemsets on the same machine is an antipattern that points to technical debt.
Having a restriction of not more than one app on one machine is as stupid as it gets.