On Friday, 9 March 2012 at 11:45 AM, Thibaut Barrère wrote:
> Hi!
> > > Just to clarify for everyone, N and N-1 refer to the minor version
> > > number, right? As in, currently 3.2 for bug fixes and 3.1 for security
> > > fixes.
> > >
> > > -- Steve Schwartz
> > Exactly
> >
> >
>
>
>
Hi!
> Just to clarify for everyone, N and N-1 refer to the minor version number,
> right? As in, currently 3.2 for bug fixes and 3.1 for security fixes.
>
> -- Steve Schwartz
>
> Exactly
>
So that means 3.0.12, released March 1, 2012 is out of maintenance, is that
right? (no pun intended, I'm try
>
> There is really only one disadvantage to the scaffold
> generators: They have to be maintained.
I think this is a great feature of the scaffold generator. Through the
years, whenever there is a major release, I can "scaffold generate
deleteme" and get a quick overview of some of the newness.
My first gut feeling was "kill it, kill it". But then, I am the kind of
person that tends to spring-clean then regret throwing away too much.
The Wow factor is what got me into Rails in the first place, even though I
quickly refactored the scaffold code I had generated ... and never looked
back
On Friday, 9 March 2012 at 4:11 PM, kristian wrote:
> so no security fixes for 3.0.x ? that comes at a big surprise and
> feels like being in the rains.
>
Depending on the issue, we generally try and ship a backported patch, and given
the similarity between 3.0 and 3.1 it's pretty unlikely tha
so no security fixes for 3.0.x ? that comes at a big surprise and
feels like being in the rains.
regards,
Kristian
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 4:09 AM, Michael Koziarski wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, 9 March 2012 at 11:38 AM, Steve Schwartz wrote:
>
> Just to clarify for everyone, N and N-1 refer to the mi
On Mar 8, 2012, at 5:25 PM, Everton Moreth wrote:
> Agreeing with José, I work on a University, and we try to keep all our
> systems follow a pattern, so clients get used to our layout and design and
> our developers get standard comment tips about how to name and describe
> methods. For this,
On Friday, 9 March 2012 at 11:38 AM, Steve Schwartz wrote:
> Just to clarify for everyone, N and N-1 refer to the minor version number,
> right? As in, currently 3.2 for bug fixes and 3.1 for security fixes.
>
> -- Steve Schwartz
Exactly
--
Cheers,
Koz
--
You received this message becau
Just to clarify for everyone, N and N-1 refer to the minor version number,
right? As in, currently 3.2 for bug fixes and 3.1 for security fixes.
-- Steve Schwartz
On Thursday, March 8, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Michael Koziarski wrote:
> I'll see if I can get that page updated. The short version is th
I'll see if I can get that page updated. The short version is that we support
the most recent release for bug fixes, and N-1 for security fixes. Everything
else is out of maintenance.
--
Cheers,
Koz
On Friday, 9 March 2012 at 10:49 AM, Steve Schwartz wrote:
> It seems like it would be ben
Agreeing with José, I work on a University, and we try to keep all our
systems follow a pattern, so clients get used to our layout and design and
our developers get standard comment tips about how to name and describe
methods. For this, we rely strongly on scaffold customization.
I also agree that
Well, I agree with those that think that Rails is not for beginners.
Having said that, if we're targeting beginners, you'll get a framework
that is beginners-friendly but may not be that nice for experienced users.
And, in fact, I do think that scaffolds are actually more useful to
experience
It seems like it would be beneficial to have a page for rails similar to
Ubuntu's wiki page for releases, which includes the release date and "end of
life" date for each release (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases).
-- Steve Schwartz
On Tuesday, March 6, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Anthony Richardson wrote
I am not going into the discussion of how scaffold affect new comers but my
personal experience is:
I spend the first 15 minutes of each project customizing scaffold to do
exactly what I want.
I remove helpers generation, update the views to fit the layout, add
responders and so on.
Then I rely
On Thu, March 8, 2012 14:30, Elomar Souza wrote:
> I don't really get it. I've been using the scaffold for a
> while, never knew it wasn't the sanctioned way of doing
> things.
. . .
>
> Can anyone please elaborate on the disadvantages of using
> the scaffold? :)
There is really only one disadv
Oh, I should have provided a link, as an example:
http://tutorials.jumpstartlab.com/projects/jsblogger.html
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com.
To unsubsc
> This helpful Stack Overflow question should display why teaching noobs
> scaffold first off is a bad thing:
> http://stackoverflow.com/revisions/9622251/1. He's shown way too much code,
> and if you take a look at his routes he has a whole bunch of actions that
> probably don't need to be th
> is there some way we can test and validate that
> this would make using rails for beginners easier in the long run?
> Serious question. I'll be happy to A/B test-teach this to a group of
> students if we could come up with some reliable way of measuring
> success.
Jumpstart Lab's intro to Rails
On Thursday, 8 March 2012 at 11:30 AM, Elomar Souza wrote:
> Can anyone please elaborate on the disadvantages of using the scaffold? :)
>
>
This helpful Stack Overflow question should display why teaching noobs scaffold
first off is a bad thing: http://stackoverflow.com/revisions/9622251/1.
Hi,
I would like to be able to direct the pointy haired bosses at a url to show
them the "support" status of rails 2.3 (so I can argue for an upgrade path).
Currently this url http://rubyonrails.org/security still refers to 2.3 as
being supported with security patches. "Fixes are prepared for all
I don't really get it. I've been using the scaffold for a while, never
knew it wasn't the sanctioned way of doing things.
Many times all I need is a CRUD. The amount of customization I have to
do is minimized by having project specific templates in lib/templates,
and scaffold saves me quite some t
Given only those two options, I would lean toward the first.
I believe education is the answer here instead of all out removal.
On Thursday, March 8, 2012 12:30:39 PM UTC-6, Ryan Bigg wrote:
>
> Hello friends,
>
> It's been fun having the scaffold generator exist as a part of Rails since
> The
I agree with pretty much everything everyone has said in terms of the scaffold
being a detriment in setting up the wrong mental model for newbies. It has also
been a long time since I've used the scaffold generators.
However, I try not to forget what my mindset was back then, before I knew what
On Friday, 9 March 2012 at 7:30 AM, Ryan Bigg wrote:
> Hello friends,
>
> It's been fun having the scaffold generator exist as a part of Rails since
> The Beginning Of Time, but I think its time is now up. It has been abused
> time and time again, and most often leads to confusion amongst pe
I spent 4 years using Rails as a teaching language both inside and outside a
local University. We stopped telling students that scaffolding even existed
after two semesters. It wash't that, as you might except, we had a problem with
generating code instead of doing work by hand. Instead we saw t
IMO, the best value of scaffolds is writing custom ones for common tasks in
your own application. I've done this on a number of occasions. It's easy
and I think it's a quite under-utilized feature of rails.
While basic CRUD is probably better delegated to engine's now. the core
concept in scaffold
Anecdotally I can remember a few times I was glad, scaffolds existed
like when teaching Rails classes to beginners, and having them excited
to get started so quickly. I can also remember more than a few times I
regretted using a scaffold after having to heavily remove or modify
most of the code it
On Thursday, 8 March 2012 at 10:58 AM, Nicolás Sanguinetti wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Geoff Harcourt (mailto:geoff.harco...@gmail.com)> wrote:
> > I would be in favor of either of these two options. I imagine extracting and
> > gem-ifying the controllers would be a hassle, but then t
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Geoff Harcourt wrote:
> I would be in favor of either of these two options. I imagine extracting and
> gem-ifying the controllers would be a hassle, but then the default path for
> setting up a new view and controller action would require the user to think
> about w
Every time I use that generator, I always regret it. It's just so
easy, so tempting...
That said, it's something that Rails has had since the beginning of
time, and was an original selling point.
That said, you could _still_ do the fifteen minute blog video, you'd
just run three commands instead
I would be in favor of either of these two options. I imagine extracting
and gem-ifying the controllers would be a hassle, but then the default path
for setting up a new view and controller action would require the user to
think about what they are doing rather than just observe the magic.
Unfortu
Hello friends,
It's been fun having the scaffold generator exist as a part of Rails since The
Beginning Of Time, but I think its time is now up. It has been abused time and
time again, and most often leads to confusion amongst people who are new to
Rails.
This confusion happens when a user fi
Em 08-03-2012 05:31, Antonio Tapiador del Dujo escreveu:
On Domingo 04 Marzo 2012 20:36:12 Michael Schuerig escribió:
On Thursday 01 March 2012, Consu wrote:
What will it cost in real money, to upgrade a bigger Rails App?
For the past few weeks I've been working on Rails app that has grown
ove
On Domingo 04 Marzo 2012 20:36:12 Michael Schuerig escribió:
> On Thursday 01 March 2012, Consu wrote:
> > What will it cost in real money, to upgrade a bigger Rails App?
>
> For the past few weeks I've been working on Rails app that has grown
> over about 3 years to around 25kloc. The app was stu
34 matches
Mail list logo
