I would like to ask this question to all Merb developers specially ...
(1) Yehuda and (2) Matt from Merb Core Team.
Pl. be frank and honest.
Question 1:- Is Merb 1.1 really coming, or plans are dropped
Question 2:- Will the Merb progress die after Rails 3.0
Question:- Why there are no updates on Merb Information and Merb
Book..?
Question:- Is Merb Core Team willing, All Merb developers should shift
to Rails 2.3.2 as soon as possible...?
Question:- Which great asests of Merb are coming in Rails 3.0..?
Finally...
Question:- Should we stick to Merb or move away to Rails as soon as
possible..?
To Merb Core Team...
It seems Merb community is decreasing day by day. Yehuda had specially
mentioned in this forum in December 2008 to remind him, if any Merb
developer thinks that he is moving away from his promise.
I think that time has come to remind him that Merb Community still
exists.. It seems New Router and Controller progress has killed his
focus and love towards Merb
Once upon a time, Merb was flooded with questions and tips. It all has
become a history now. Now.. I am also worried about my future with
Merb.
I hope many other developers are passing through this stage.
I'd like to chime in and say that I am still happily building apps with merb, http://engineyard.com/solo is built on merb. I don't find that there is anything I'm missing or that there are any features or major bugs stopping me from building apps with merb.
If merb works for you then use it, it is very stable and runs well in production. If you need the newest shiniest features all the time then rails is probably getting more love these days and may be a better option for you.
I'll let Yehuda and Matt chime in on the other questions specifically but I just wanted to say that merb is solid as is, it works and runs very well in production. I think merb is kind of feature complete and extensible enough that you can build whatever you want with it as a solid foundation.
Only thing I'm keen for is the run_later fixes for using with passenger...
Since I only have one app that needs run_later in production and that is
only for updating something once a month. I simply spool up a thin instance
on another port and update. Shut it down after it is done and I'm on my way.
I've nearly finished a 2nd production merb app and everything is great :)
All the funky stuff coming in the router would be "nice to have" - it is not
like I need them or my app wont work...
Merb right now works really well and is very flexible. I say kudos to the
merb dev team and thanks for a solid framework that lets me get on with what
I want to do ;)
Nick
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Ezra Zygmuntowicz <ezmob...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I'd like to chime in and say that I am still happily building apps
> with merb, http://engineyard.com/solo is built on merb. I don't find
> that there is anything I'm missing or that there are any features or
> major bugs stopping me from building apps with merb.
> If merb works for you then use it, it is very stable and runs well
> in
> production. If you need the newest shiniest features all the time then
> rails is probably getting more love these days and may be a better
> option for you.
> I'll let Yehuda and Matt chime in on the other questions
> specifically
> but I just wanted to say that merb is solid as is, it works and runs
> very well in production. I think merb is kind of feature complete and
> extensible enough that you can build whatever you want with it as a
> solid foundation.
I'd would agree with Ezra that Merb is solid. I've built 3 production
apps and working on a fourth.
However, even though Merb was solid, there was a lot of good stuff
planned for Merb 1.1 back on March 2nd, 2009. (but these weren't
promises just hopes)
- ruby 1.9 compatibility
- namespaced applications
- active orm
- run_later
- thor improvements
There was the impression/promise that Merb apps would provide a
migration path to Rails 3. That's probably my biggest concern right
now.
Additionally, I'm still in the camp that it was a mistake to go to
Rails. It's been months of refactoring work for Yehuda - the majority
of which was already a core part of merb it seems to me. And I know
for a fact Yehuda has been very very busy. He deserves a medal for
taking on that code. You've seen his blog posts. Holy cow it's a ton
of work refactoring rails. I think the Merb/Rails framework would have
been quite further along if half the effort in refactoring rails was
put towards Merb.
Having said all that, these are just my opinions. I haven't
contributed any code, and these guys know better than a non-committer
like me. I've had the pleasure of meeting Matt, and I can say that we
are lucky as a community to have such smart and giving dudes - Yehuda,
Matt, Carl, Ezra and others.
On Jun 27, 11:07 pm, Nicholas Orr <nicholas....@zxgen.net> wrote:
> Only thing I'm keen for is the run_later fixes for using with passenger...
> Since I only have one app that needs run_later in production and that is
> only for updating something once a month. I simply spool up a thin instance
> on another port and update. Shut it down after it is done and I'm on my way.
> I've nearly finished a 2nd production merb app and everything is great :)
> All the funky stuff coming in the router would be "nice to have" - it is not
> like I need them or my app wont work...
> Merb right now works really well and is very flexible. I say kudos to the
> merb dev team and thanks for a solid framework that lets me get on with what
> I want to do ;)
> Nick
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Ezra Zygmuntowicz <ezmob...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 2009, at 8:34 PM, MyMerb wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > I'd like to chime in and say that I am still happily building apps
> > with merb,http://engineyard.com/solois built on merb. I don't find
> > that there is anything I'm missing or that there are any features or
> > major bugs stopping me from building apps with merb.
> > If merb works for you then use it, it is very stable and runs well
> > in
> > production. If you need the newest shiniest features all the time then
> > rails is probably getting more love these days and may be a better
> > option for you.
> > I'll let Yehuda and Matt chime in on the other questions
> > specifically
> > but I just wanted to say that merb is solid as is, it works and runs
> > very well in production. I think merb is kind of feature complete and
> > extensible enough that you can build whatever you want with it as a
> > solid foundation.
> I'd would agree with Ezra that Merb is solid. I've built 3 production
> apps and working on a fourth.
> However, even though Merb was solid, there was a lot of good stuff
> planned for Merb 1.1 back on March 2nd, 2009. (but these weren't
> promises just hopes)
> - ruby 1.9 compatibility
> - namespaced applications
> - active orm
> - run_later
> - thor improvements
> There was the impression/promise that Merb apps would provide a
> migration path to Rails 3. That's probably my biggest concern right
> now.
> Additionally, I'm still in the camp that it was a mistake to go to
> Rails. It's been months of refactoring work for Yehuda - the majority
> of which was already a core part of merb it seems to me. And I know
> for a fact Yehuda has been very very busy. He deserves a medal for
> taking on that code. You've seen his blog posts. Holy cow it's a ton
> of work refactoring rails. I think the Merb/Rails framework would have
> been quite further along if half the effort in refactoring rails was
> put towards Merb.
> Having said all that, these are just my opinions. I haven't
> contributed any code, and these guys know better than a non-committer
> like me. I've had the pleasure of meeting Matt, and I can say that we
> are lucky as a community to have such smart and giving dudes - Yehuda,
> Matt, Carl, Ezra and others.
> On Jun 27, 11:07 pm, Nicholas Orr <nicholas....@zxgen.net> wrote:
>> Only thing I'm keen for is the run_later fixes for using with
>> passenger...
>> Since I only have one app that needs run_later in production and
>> that is
>> only for updating something once a month. I simply spool up a thin
>> instance
>> on another port and update. Shut it down after it is done and I'm
>> on my way.
>> I've nearly finished a 2nd production merb app and everything is
>> great :)
>> All the funky stuff coming in the router would be "nice to have" -
>> it is not
>> like I need them or my app wont work...
>> Merb right now works really well and is very flexible. I say kudos
>> to the
>> merb dev team and thanks for a solid framework that lets me get on
>> with what
>> I want to do ;)
>> Nick
>> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Ezra Zygmuntowicz
>> <ezmob...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> On Jun 27, 2009, at 8:34 PM, MyMerb wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>> I'd like to chime in and say that I am still happily
>>> building apps
>>> with merb,http://engineyard.com/solois built on merb. I don't find
>>> that there is anything I'm missing or that there are any features or
>>> major bugs stopping me from building apps with merb.
>>> If merb works for you then use it, it is very stable and
>>> runs well
>>> in
>>> production. If you need the newest shiniest features all the time
>>> then
>>> rails is probably getting more love these days and may be a better
>>> option for you.
>>> I'll let Yehuda and Matt chime in on the other questions
>>> specifically
>>> but I just wanted to say that merb is solid as is, it works and runs
>>> very well in production. I think merb is kind of feature complete
>>> and
>>> extensible enough that you can build whatever you want with it as a
>>> solid foundation.
I bought the book too which does seem to have died a long time ago.
Surely Manning should be refunding their customers for buying a book
which it looks like is never going to be produced.
On Jun 28, 5:39 pm, Julian Leviston <jul...@leviston.net> wrote:
> Yeah I'm pretty crapped off that the book that I paid for is
> apparently not coming from manning any more... and manning don't reply
> to my emails.
> Julian.
> On 29/06/2009, at 2:24 AM, scottmotte wrote:
> > I'd would agree with Ezra that Merb is solid. I've built 3 production
> > apps and working on a fourth.
> > However, even though Merb was solid, there was a lot of good stuff
> > planned for Merb 1.1 back on March 2nd, 2009. (but these weren't
> > promises just hopes)
> > - ruby 1.9 compatibility
> > - namespaced applications
> > - active orm
> > - run_later
> > - thor improvements
> > There was the impression/promise that Merb apps would provide a
> > migration path to Rails 3. That's probably my biggest concern right
> > now.
> > Additionally, I'm still in the camp that it was a mistake to go to
> > Rails. It's been months of refactoring work for Yehuda - the majority
> > of which was already a core part of merb it seems to me. And I know
> > for a fact Yehuda has been very very busy. He deserves a medal for
> > taking on that code. You've seen his blog posts. Holy cow it's a ton
> > of work refactoring rails. I think the Merb/Rails framework would have
> > been quite further along if half the effort in refactoring rails was
> > put towards Merb.
> > Having said all that, these are just my opinions. I haven't
> > contributed any code, and these guys know better than a non-committer
> > like me. I've had the pleasure of meeting Matt, and I can say that we
> > are lucky as a community to have such smart and giving dudes - Yehuda,
> > Matt, Carl, Ezra and others.
> > On Jun 27, 11:07 pm, Nicholas Orr <nicholas....@zxgen.net> wrote:
> >> Only thing I'm keen for is the run_later fixes for using with
> >> passenger...
> >> Since I only have one app that needs run_later in production and
> >> that is
> >> only for updating something once a month. I simply spool up a thin
> >> instance
> >> on another port and update. Shut it down after it is done and I'm
> >> on my way.
> >> I've nearly finished a 2nd production merb app and everything is
> >> great :)
> >> All the funky stuff coming in the router would be "nice to have" -
> >> it is not
> >> like I need them or my app wont work...
> >> Merb right now works really well and is very flexible. I say kudos
> >> to the
> >> merb dev team and thanks for a solid framework that lets me get on
> >> with what
> >> I want to do ;)
> >> Nick
> >> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Ezra Zygmuntowicz
> >> <ezmob...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >>> On Jun 27, 2009, at 8:34 PM, MyMerb wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>> I'd like to chime in and say that I am still happily
> >>> building apps
> >>> with merb,http://engineyard.com/soloisbuilt on merb. I don't find
> >>> that there is anything I'm missing or that there are any features or
> >>> major bugs stopping me from building apps with merb.
> >>> If merb works for you then use it, it is very stable and
> >>> runs well
> >>> in
> >>> production. If you need the newest shiniest features all the time
> >>> then
> >>> rails is probably getting more love these days and may be a better
> >>> option for you.
> >>> I'll let Yehuda and Matt chime in on the other questions
> >>> specifically
> >>> but I just wanted to say that merb is solid as is, it works and runs
> >>> very well in production. I think merb is kind of feature complete
> >>> and
> >>> extensible enough that you can build whatever you want with it as a
> >>> solid foundation.
I'm going to take the time this weekend to thoughtfully respond to this
thread. With regard to the book, I expected that people received an email
from Manning explaining that the book has been switched to Rails 3 in
Action, which we are currently working on. Unfortunately, since Rails 3 was
up in the air as we were working on it, it was hard to get started without
having to radically change the book as we moved forward.
The idea of the Rails 3 in Action book is to cater to folks who are
interested in configuration their framework and learning the power of the
internals. So it won't be a beginner book, but it should be everyone's
second Rails book. I hope that helped answer your question.
-- Yehuda
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Alistair Holt <alistairh...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I bought the book too which does seem to have died a long time ago.
> Surely Manning should be refunding their customers for buying a book
> which it looks like is never going to be produced.
> On Jun 28, 5:39 pm, Julian Leviston <jul...@leviston.net> wrote:
> > Yeah I'm pretty crapped off that the book that I paid for is
> > apparently not coming from manning any more... and manning don't reply
> > to my emails.
> > Julian.
> > On 29/06/2009, at 2:24 AM, scottmotte wrote:
> > > I'd would agree with Ezra that Merb is solid. I've built 3 production
> > > apps and working on a fourth.
> > > However, even though Merb was solid, there was a lot of good stuff
> > > planned for Merb 1.1 back on March 2nd, 2009. (but these weren't
> > > promises just hopes)
> > > - ruby 1.9 compatibility
> > > - namespaced applications
> > > - active orm
> > > - run_later
> > > - thor improvements
> > > There was the impression/promise that Merb apps would provide a
> > > migration path to Rails 3. That's probably my biggest concern right
> > > now.
> > > Additionally, I'm still in the camp that it was a mistake to go to
> > > Rails. It's been months of refactoring work for Yehuda - the majority
> > > of which was already a core part of merb it seems to me. And I know
> > > for a fact Yehuda has been very very busy. He deserves a medal for
> > > taking on that code. You've seen his blog posts. Holy cow it's a ton
> > > of work refactoring rails. I think the Merb/Rails framework would have
> > > been quite further along if half the effort in refactoring rails was
> > > put towards Merb.
> > > Having said all that, these are just my opinions. I haven't
> > > contributed any code, and these guys know better than a non-committer
> > > like me. I've had the pleasure of meeting Matt, and I can say that we
> > > are lucky as a community to have such smart and giving dudes - Yehuda,
> > > Matt, Carl, Ezra and others.
> > > On Jun 27, 11:07 pm, Nicholas Orr <nicholas....@zxgen.net> wrote:
> > >> Only thing I'm keen for is the run_later fixes for using with
> > >> passenger...
> > >> Since I only have one app that needs run_later in production and
> > >> that is
> > >> only for updating something once a month. I simply spool up a thin
> > >> instance
> > >> on another port and update. Shut it down after it is done and I'm
> > >> on my way.
> > >> I've nearly finished a 2nd production merb app and everything is
> > >> great :)
> > >> All the funky stuff coming in the router would be "nice to have" -
> > >> it is not
> > >> like I need them or my app wont work...
> > >> Merb right now works really well and is very flexible. I say kudos
> > >> to the
> > >> merb dev team and thanks for a solid framework that lets me get on
> > >> with what
> > >> I want to do ;)
> > >> Nick
> > >> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Ezra Zygmuntowicz
> > >> <ezmob...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > >>> On Jun 27, 2009, at 8:34 PM, MyMerb wrote:
> > >>>> Hi,
> > >>> I'd like to chime in and say that I am still happily
> > >>> building apps
> > >>> with merb,http://engineyard.com/soloisbuilt on merb. I don't find
> > >>> that there is anything I'm missing or that there are any features or
> > >>> major bugs stopping me from building apps with merb.
> > >>> If merb works for you then use it, it is very stable and
> > >>> runs well
> > >>> in
> > >>> production. If you need the newest shiniest features all the time
> > >>> then
> > >>> rails is probably getting more love these days and may be a better
> > >>> option for you.
> > >>> I'll let Yehuda and Matt chime in on the other questions
> > >>> specifically
> > >>> but I just wanted to say that merb is solid as is, it works and runs
> > >>> very well in production. I think merb is kind of feature complete
> > >>> and
> > >>> extensible enough that you can build whatever you want with it as a
> > >>> solid foundation.
> I'm going to take the time this weekend to thoughtfully respond to
> this thread. With regard to the book, I expected that people
> received an email from Manning explaining that the book has been
> switched to Rails 3 in Action, which we are currently working on.
> Unfortunately, since Rails 3 was up in the air as we were working on
> it, it was hard to get started without having to radically change
> the book as we moved forward.
> The idea of the Rails 3 in Action book is to cater to folks who are
> interested in configuration their framework and learning the power
> of the internals. So it won't be a beginner book, but it should be
> everyone's second Rails book. I hope that helped answer your question.
> -- Yehuda
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Alistair Holt <alistairh...@gmail.com > > wrote:
> I bought the book too which does seem to have died a long time ago.
> Surely Manning should be refunding their customers for buying a book
> which it looks like is never going to be produced.
> On Jun 28, 5:39 pm, Julian Leviston <jul...@leviston.net> wrote:
> > Yeah I'm pretty crapped off that the book that I paid for is
> > apparently not coming from manning any more... and manning don't
> reply
> > to my emails.
> > Julian.
> > On 29/06/2009, at 2:24 AM, scottmotte wrote:
> > > I'd would agree with Ezra that Merb is solid. I've built 3
> production
> > > apps and working on a fourth.
> > > However, even though Merb was solid, there was a lot of good stuff
> > > planned for Merb 1.1 back on March 2nd, 2009. (but these weren't
> > > promises just hopes)
> > > - ruby 1.9 compatibility
> > > - namespaced applications
> > > - active orm
> > > - run_later
> > > - thor improvements
> > > There was the impression/promise that Merb apps would provide a
> > > migration path to Rails 3. That's probably my biggest concern
> right
> > > now.
> > > Additionally, I'm still in the camp that it was a mistake to go to
> > > Rails. It's been months of refactoring work for Yehuda - the
> majority
> > > of which was already a core part of merb it seems to me. And I
> know
> > > for a fact Yehuda has been very very busy. He deserves a medal for
> > > taking on that code. You've seen his blog posts. Holy cow it's a
> ton
> > > of work refactoring rails. I think the Merb/Rails framework
> would have
> > > been quite further along if half the effort in refactoring rails
> was
> > > put towards Merb.
> > > Having said all that, these are just my opinions. I haven't
> > > contributed any code, and these guys know better than a non- > committer
> > > like me. I've had the pleasure of meeting Matt, and I can say
> that we
> > > are lucky as a community to have such smart and giving dudes -
> Yehuda,
> > > Matt, Carl, Ezra and others.
> > > On Jun 27, 11:07 pm, Nicholas Orr <nicholas....@zxgen.net> wrote:
> > >> Only thing I'm keen for is the run_later fixes for using with
> > >> passenger...
> > >> Since I only have one app that needs run_later in production and
> > >> that is
> > >> only for updating something once a month. I simply spool up a
> thin
> > >> instance
> > >> on another port and update. Shut it down after it is done and I'm
> > >> on my way.
> > >> I've nearly finished a 2nd production merb app and everything is
> > >> great :)
> > >> All the funky stuff coming in the router would be "nice to
> have" -
> > >> it is not
> > >> like I need them or my app wont work...
> > >> Merb right now works really well and is very flexible. I say
> kudos
> > >> to the
> > >> merb dev team and thanks for a solid framework that lets me get
> on
> > >> with what
> > >> I want to do ;)
> > >> Nick
> > >> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Ezra Zygmuntowicz
> > >> <ezmob...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > >>> On Jun 27, 2009, at 8:34 PM, MyMerb wrote:
> > >>>> Hi,
> > >>> I'd like to chime in and say that I am still happily
> > >>> building apps
> > >>> with merb,http://engineyard.com/soloisbuilt on merb. I don't
> find
> > >>> that there is anything I'm missing or that there are any
> features or
> > >>> major bugs stopping me from building apps with merb.
> > >>> If merb works for you then use it, it is very stable and
> > >>> runs well
> > >>> in
> > >>> production. If you need the newest shiniest features all the
> time
> > >>> then
> > >>> rails is probably getting more love these days and may be a
> better
> > >>> option for you.
> > >>> I'll let Yehuda and Matt chime in on the other questions
> > >>> specifically
> > >>> but I just wanted to say that merb is solid as is, it works
> and runs
> > >>> very well in production. I think merb is kind of feature
> complete
> > >>> and
> > >>> extensible enough that you can build whatever you want with it
> as a
> > >>> solid foundation.
Well I think it morphed into a Rails 3 book - but the point is
customer service 101 stipulates that you really should tell your
customers what's going on...
> I bought the book too which does seem to have died a long time ago.
> Surely Manning should be refunding their customers for buying a book
> which it looks like is never going to be produced.
> On Jun 28, 5:39 pm, Julian Leviston <jul...@leviston.net> wrote:
>> Yeah I'm pretty crapped off that the book that I paid for is
>> apparently not coming from manning any more... and manning don't
>> reply
>> to my emails.
>> Julian.
>> On 29/06/2009, at 2:24 AM, scottmotte wrote:
>>> I'd would agree with Ezra that Merb is solid. I've built 3
>>> production
>>> apps and working on a fourth.
>>> However, even though Merb was solid, there was a lot of good stuff
>>> planned for Merb 1.1 back on March 2nd, 2009. (but these weren't
>>> promises just hopes)
>>> - ruby 1.9 compatibility
>>> - namespaced applications
>>> - active orm
>>> - run_later
>>> - thor improvements
>>> There was the impression/promise that Merb apps would provide a
>>> migration path to Rails 3. That's probably my biggest concern right
>>> now.
>>> Additionally, I'm still in the camp that it was a mistake to go to
>>> Rails. It's been months of refactoring work for Yehuda - the
>>> majority
>>> of which was already a core part of merb it seems to me. And I know
>>> for a fact Yehuda has been very very busy. He deserves a medal for
>>> taking on that code. You've seen his blog posts. Holy cow it's a ton
>>> of work refactoring rails. I think the Merb/Rails framework would
>>> have
>>> been quite further along if half the effort in refactoring rails was
>>> put towards Merb.
>>> Having said all that, these are just my opinions. I haven't
>>> contributed any code, and these guys know better than a non- >>> committer
>>> like me. I've had the pleasure of meeting Matt, and I can say that
>>> we
>>> are lucky as a community to have such smart and giving dudes -
>>> Yehuda,
>>> Matt, Carl, Ezra and others.
>>> On Jun 27, 11:07 pm, Nicholas Orr <nicholas....@zxgen.net> wrote:
>>>> Only thing I'm keen for is the run_later fixes for using with
>>>> passenger...
>>>> Since I only have one app that needs run_later in production and
>>>> that is
>>>> only for updating something once a month. I simply spool up a thin
>>>> instance
>>>> on another port and update. Shut it down after it is done and I'm
>>>> on my way.
>>>> I've nearly finished a 2nd production merb app and everything is
>>>> great :)
>>>> All the funky stuff coming in the router would be "nice to have" -
>>>> it is not
>>>> like I need them or my app wont work...
>>>> Merb right now works really well and is very flexible. I say kudos
>>>> to the
>>>> merb dev team and thanks for a solid framework that lets me get on
>>>> with what
>>>> I want to do ;)
>>>> Nick
>>>> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Ezra Zygmuntowicz
>>>> <ezmob...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 27, 2009, at 8:34 PM, MyMerb wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> I'd like to chime in and say that I am still happily
>>>>> building apps
>>>>> with merb,http://engineyard.com/soloisbuilt on merb. I don't find
>>>>> that there is anything I'm missing or that there are any
>>>>> features or
>>>>> major bugs stopping me from building apps with merb.
>>>>> If merb works for you then use it, it is very stable and
>>>>> runs well
>>>>> in
>>>>> production. If you need the newest shiniest features all the time
>>>>> then
>>>>> rails is probably getting more love these days and may be a better
>>>>> option for you.
>>>>> I'll let Yehuda and Matt chime in on the other questions
>>>>> specifically
>>>>> but I just wanted to say that merb is solid as is, it works and
>>>>> runs
>>>>> very well in production. I think merb is kind of feature complete
>>>>> and
>>>>> extensible enough that you can build whatever you want with it
>>>>> as a
>>>>> solid foundation.
About the book - yeah, that's cool, and I vaguely remember being sent
this email (I think!) but my point is that there is nothing on their
website about the switchover, they have practically zero communication
about it, and I've emailed twice now to say what's going on and
received zip response.
Compare this to the kind of service you get from the pragprog guys,
and you get to see my point a little.
> I'm going to take the time this weekend to thoughtfully respond to
> this thread. With regard to the book, I expected that people
> received an email from Manning explaining that the book has been
> switched to Rails 3 in Action, which we are currently working on.
> Unfortunately, since Rails 3 was up in the air as we were working on
> it, it was hard to get started without having to radically change
> the book as we moved forward.
> The idea of the Rails 3 in Action book is to cater to folks who are
> interested in configuration their framework and learning the power
> of the internals. So it won't be a beginner book, but it should be
> everyone's second Rails book. I hope that helped answer your question.
> -- Yehuda
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Alistair Holt <alistairh...@gmail.com > > wrote:
> I bought the book too which does seem to have died a long time ago.
> Surely Manning should be refunding their customers for buying a book
> which it looks like is never going to be produced.
> On Jun 28, 5:39 pm, Julian Leviston <jul...@leviston.net> wrote:
> > Yeah I'm pretty crapped off that the book that I paid for is
> > apparently not coming from manning any more... and manning don't
> reply
> > to my emails.
> > Julian.
> > On 29/06/2009, at 2:24 AM, scottmotte wrote:
> > > I'd would agree with Ezra that Merb is solid. I've built 3
> production
> > > apps and working on a fourth.
> > > However, even though Merb was solid, there was a lot of good stuff
> > > planned for Merb 1.1 back on March 2nd, 2009. (but these weren't
> > > promises just hopes)
> > > - ruby 1.9 compatibility
> > > - namespaced applications
> > > - active orm
> > > - run_later
> > > - thor improvements
> > > There was the impression/promise that Merb apps would provide a
> > > migration path to Rails 3. That's probably my biggest concern
> right
> > > now.
> > > Additionally, I'm still in the camp that it was a mistake to go to
> > > Rails. It's been months of refactoring work for Yehuda - the
> majority
> > > of which was already a core part of merb it seems to me. And I
> know
> > > for a fact Yehuda has been very very busy. He deserves a medal for
> > > taking on that code. You've seen his blog posts. Holy cow it's a
> ton
> > > of work refactoring rails. I think the Merb/Rails framework
> would have
> > > been quite further along if half the effort in refactoring rails
> was
> > > put towards Merb.
> > > Having said all that, these are just my opinions. I haven't
> > > contributed any code, and these guys know better than a non- > committer
> > > like me. I've had the pleasure of meeting Matt, and I can say
> that we
> > > are lucky as a community to have such smart and giving dudes -
> Yehuda,
> > > Matt, Carl, Ezra and others.
> > > On Jun 27, 11:07 pm, Nicholas Orr <nicholas....@zxgen.net> wrote:
> > >> Only thing I'm keen for is the run_later fixes for using with
> > >> passenger...
> > >> Since I only have one app that needs run_later in production and
> > >> that is
> > >> only for updating something once a month. I simply spool up a
> thin
> > >> instance
> > >> on another port and update. Shut it down after it is done and I'm
> > >> on my way.
> > >> I've nearly finished a 2nd production merb app and everything is
> > >> great :)
> > >> All the funky stuff coming in the router would be "nice to
> have" -
> > >> it is not
> > >> like I need them or my app wont work...
> > >> Merb right now works really well and is very flexible. I say
> kudos
> > >> to the
> > >> merb dev team and thanks for a solid framework that lets me get
> on
> > >> with what
> > >> I want to do ;)
> > >> Nick
> > >> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Ezra Zygmuntowicz
> > >> <ezmob...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > >>> On Jun 27, 2009, at 8:34 PM, MyMerb wrote:
> > >>>> Hi,
> > >>> I'd like to chime in and say that I am still happily
> > >>> building apps
> > >>> with merb,http://engineyard.com/soloisbuilt on merb. I don't
> find
> > >>> that there is anything I'm missing or that there are any
> features or
> > >>> major bugs stopping me from building apps with merb.
> > >>> If merb works for you then use it, it is very stable and
> > >>> runs well
> > >>> in
> > >>> production. If you need the newest shiniest features all the
> time
> > >>> then
> > >>> rails is probably getting more love these days and may be a
> better
> > >>> option for you.
> > >>> I'll let Yehuda and Matt chime in on the other questions
> > >>> specifically
> > >>> but I just wanted to say that merb is solid as is, it works
> and runs
> > >>> very well in production. I think merb is kind of feature
> complete
> > >>> and
> > >>> extensible enough that you can build whatever you want with it
> as a
> > >>> solid foundation.
I understand your frustration, but to be fair, from the Manning site:
> Note from Publisher: Because Rails 3 in Action is replacing Merb in
> Action, if you order now, we'll send you the chapters developed so far
> for Merb in Action, and you'll start receiving new chapters based on Rails 3
> as soon as they become available.
In December 2008, the Merb team announced that they will be collaborating
> with the Rails core team on the next versions of Merb and Rails. Rather than
> maintaining parallel tracks, Merb 2 and Rails 3 will merge, preserving the
> flexible configuration and advanced features that Merb users love along with
> the rapid productivity and ease-of-use that makes Rails shine. As Engine
> Yard developer (and Manning author) Yehuda Katz puts it, "Effectively, Merb
> 2 is Rails 3."
We're also in the process of working up another email to MEAP subscribers;
I'll try to find out why your email wasn't responded to.
-- Yehuda
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Julian Leviston <jul...@leviston.net>wrote:
> About the book - yeah, that's cool, and I vaguely remember being sent this
> email (I think!) but my point is that there is nothing on their website
> about the switchover, they have practically zero communication about it, and
> I've emailed twice now to say what's going on and received zip response.
> Compare this to the kind of service you get from the pragprog guys, and you
> get to see my point a little.
> Julian.
> On 29/06/2009, at 6:42 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote:
> I'm going to take the time this weekend to thoughtfully respond to this
> thread. With regard to the book, I expected that people received an email
> from Manning explaining that the book has been switched to Rails 3 in
> Action, which we are currently working on. Unfortunately, since Rails 3 was
> up in the air as we were working on it, it was hard to get started without
> having to radically change the book as we moved forward.
> The idea of the Rails 3 in Action book is to cater to folks who are
> interested in configuration their framework and learning the power of the
> internals. So it won't be a beginner book, but it should be everyone's
> second Rails book. I hope that helped answer your question.
> -- Yehuda
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Alistair Holt <alistairh...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> I bought the book too which does seem to have died a long time ago.
>> Surely Manning should be refunding their customers for buying a book
>> which it looks like is never going to be produced.
>> On Jun 28, 5:39 pm, Julian Leviston <jul...@leviston.net> wrote:
>> > Yeah I'm pretty crapped off that the book that I paid for is
>> > apparently not coming from manning any more... and manning don't reply
>> > to my emails.
>> > Julian.
>> > On 29/06/2009, at 2:24 AM, scottmotte wrote:
>> > > I'd would agree with Ezra that Merb is solid. I've built 3 production
>> > > apps and working on a fourth.
>> > > However, even though Merb was solid, there was a lot of good stuff
>> > > planned for Merb 1.1 back on March 2nd, 2009. (but these weren't
>> > > promises just hopes)
>> > > - ruby 1.9 compatibility
>> > > - namespaced applications
>> > > - active orm
>> > > - run_later
>> > > - thor improvements
>> > > There was the impression/promise that Merb apps would provide a
>> > > migration path to Rails 3. That's probably my biggest concern right
>> > > now.
>> > > Additionally, I'm still in the camp that it was a mistake to go to
>> > > Rails. It's been months of refactoring work for Yehuda - the majority
>> > > of which was already a core part of merb it seems to me. And I know
>> > > for a fact Yehuda has been very very busy. He deserves a medal for
>> > > taking on that code. You've seen his blog posts. Holy cow it's a ton
>> > > of work refactoring rails. I think the Merb/Rails framework would have
>> > > been quite further along if half the effort in refactoring rails was
>> > > put towards Merb.
>> > > Having said all that, these are just my opinions. I haven't
>> > > contributed any code, and these guys know better than a non-committer
>> > > like me. I've had the pleasure of meeting Matt, and I can say that we
>> > > are lucky as a community to have such smart and giving dudes - Yehuda,
>> > > Matt, Carl, Ezra and others.
>> > > On Jun 27, 11:07 pm, Nicholas Orr <nicholas....@zxgen.net> wrote:
>> > >> Only thing I'm keen for is the run_later fixes for using with
>> > >> passenger...
>> > >> Since I only have one app that needs run_later in production and
>> > >> that is
>> > >> only for updating something once a month. I simply spool up a thin
>> > >> instance
>> > >> on another port and update. Shut it down after it is done and I'm
>> > >> on my way.
>> > >> I've nearly finished a 2nd production merb app and everything is
>> > >> great :)
>> > >> All the funky stuff coming in the router would be "nice to have" -
>> > >> it is not
>> > >> like I need them or my app wont work...
>> > >> Merb right now works really well and is very flexible. I say kudos
>> > >> to the
>> > >> merb dev team and thanks for a solid framework that lets me get on
>> > >> with what
>> > >> I want to do ;)
>> > >> Nick
>> > >> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Ezra Zygmuntowicz
>> > >> <ezmob...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> > >>> On Jun 27, 2009, at 8:34 PM, MyMerb wrote:
>> > >>>> Hi,
>> > >>> I'd like to chime in and say that I am still happily
>> > >>> building apps
>> > >>> with merb,http://engineyard.com/soloisbuilt on merb. I don't find
>> > >>> that there is anything I'm missing or that there are any features or
>> > >>> major bugs stopping me from building apps with merb.
>> > >>> If merb works for you then use it, it is very stable and
>> > >>> runs well
>> > >>> in
>> > >>> production. If you need the newest shiniest features all the time
>> > >>> then
>> > >>> rails is probably getting more love these days and may be a better
>> > >>> option for you.
>> > >>> I'll let Yehuda and Matt chime in on the other questions
>> > >>> specifically
>> > >>> but I just wanted to say that merb is solid as is, it works and runs
>> > >>> very well in production. I think merb is kind of feature complete
>> > >>> and
>> > >>> extensible enough that you can build whatever you want with it as a
>> > >>> solid foundation.
> I understand your frustration, but to be fair, from the Manning site:
> Note from Publisher: Because Rails 3 in Action is replacing Merb in
> Action, if you order now, we'll send you the chapters developed so
> far for Merb in Action, and you'll start receiving new chapters
> based on Rails 3 as soon as they become available.
> In December 2008, the Merb team announced that they will be
> collaborating with the Rails core team on the next versions of Merb
> and Rails. Rather than maintaining parallel tracks, Merb 2 and Rails
> 3 will merge, preserving the flexible configuration and advanced
> features that Merb users love along with the rapid productivity and
> ease-of-use that makes Rails shine. As Engine Yard developer (and
> Manning author) Yehuda Katz puts it, "Effectively, Merb 2 is Rails 3."
> We're also in the process of working up another email to MEAP
> subscribers; I'll try to find out why your email wasn't responded to.
> -- Yehuda
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Julian Leviston
> <jul...@leviston.net> wrote:
> About the book - yeah, that's cool, and I vaguely remember being
> sent this email (I think!) but my point is that there is nothing on
> their website about the switchover, they have practically zero
> communication about it, and I've emailed twice now to say what's
> going on and received zip response.
> Compare this to the kind of service you get from the pragprog guys,
> and you get to see my point a little.
> Julian.
> On 29/06/2009, at 6:42 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote:
>> I'm going to take the time this weekend to thoughtfully respond to
>> this thread. With regard to the book, I expected that people
>> received an email from Manning explaining that the book has been
>> switched to Rails 3 in Action, which we are currently working on.
>> Unfortunately, since Rails 3 was up in the air as we were working
>> on it, it was hard to get started without having to radically
>> change the book as we moved forward.
>> The idea of the Rails 3 in Action book is to cater to folks who are
>> interested in configuration their framework and learning the power
>> of the internals. So it won't be a beginner book, but it should be
>> everyone's second Rails book. I hope that helped answer your
>> question.
>> -- Yehuda
>> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Alistair Holt <alistairh...@gmail.com >> > wrote:
>> I bought the book too which does seem to have died a long time ago.
>> Surely Manning should be refunding their customers for buying a book
>> which it looks like is never going to be produced.
>> On Jun 28, 5:39 pm, Julian Leviston <jul...@leviston.net> wrote:
>> > Yeah I'm pretty crapped off that the book that I paid for is
>> > apparently not coming from manning any more... and manning don't
>> reply
>> > to my emails.
>> > Julian.
>> > On 29/06/2009, at 2:24 AM, scottmotte wrote:
>> > > I'd would agree with Ezra that Merb is solid. I've built 3
>> production
>> > > apps and working on a fourth.
>> > > However, even though Merb was solid, there was a lot of good
>> stuff
>> > > planned for Merb 1.1 back on March 2nd, 2009. (but these weren't
>> > > promises just hopes)
>> > > - ruby 1.9 compatibility
>> > > - namespaced applications
>> > > - active orm
>> > > - run_later
>> > > - thor improvements
>> > > There was the impression/promise that Merb apps would provide a
>> > > migration path to Rails 3. That's probably my biggest concern
>> right
>> > > now.
>> > > Additionally, I'm still in the camp that it was a mistake to go
>> to
>> > > Rails. It's been months of refactoring work for Yehuda - the
>> majority
>> > > of which was already a core part of merb it seems to me. And I
>> know
>> > > for a fact Yehuda has been very very busy. He deserves a medal
>> for
>> > > taking on that code. You've seen his blog posts. Holy cow it's
>> a ton
>> > > of work refactoring rails. I think the Merb/Rails framework
>> would have
>> > > been quite further along if half the effort in refactoring
>> rails was
>> > > put towards Merb.
>> > > Having said all that, these are just my opinions. I haven't
>> > > contributed any code, and these guys know better than a non- >> committer
>> > > like me. I've had the pleasure of meeting Matt, and I can say
>> that we
>> > > are lucky as a community to have such smart and giving dudes -
>> Yehuda,
>> > > Matt, Carl, Ezra and others.
>> > > On Jun 27, 11:07 pm, Nicholas Orr <nicholas....@zxgen.net> wrote:
>> > >> Only thing I'm keen for is the run_later fixes for using with
>> > >> passenger...
>> > >> Since I only have one app that needs run_later in production and
>> > >> that is
>> > >> only for updating something once a month. I simply spool up a
>> thin
>> > >> instance
>> > >> on another port and update. Shut it down after it is done and
>> I'm
>> > >> on my way.
>> > >> I've nearly finished a 2nd production merb app and everything is
>> > >> great :)
>> > >> All the funky stuff coming in the router would be "nice to
>> have" -
>> > >> it is not
>> > >> like I need them or my app wont work...
>> > >> Merb right now works really well and is very flexible. I say
>> kudos
>> > >> to the
>> > >> merb dev team and thanks for a solid framework that lets me
>> get on
>> > >> with what
>> > >> I want to do ;)
>> > >> Nick
>> > >> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Ezra Zygmuntowicz
>> > >> <ezmob...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> > >>> On Jun 27, 2009, at 8:34 PM, MyMerb wrote:
>> > >>>> Hi,
>> > >>> I'd like to chime in and say that I am still happily
>> > >>> building apps
>> > >>> with merb,http://engineyard.com/soloisbuilt on merb. I don't
>> find
>> > >>> that there is anything I'm missing or that there are any
>> features or
>> > >>> major bugs stopping me from building apps with merb.
>> > >>> If merb works for you then use it, it is very stable and
>> > >>> runs well
>> > >>> in
>> > >>> production. If you need the newest shiniest features all the
>> time
>> > >>> then
>> > >>> rails is probably getting more love these days and may be a
>> better
>> > >>> option for you.
>> > >>> I'll let Yehuda and Matt chime in on the other questions
>> > >>> specifically
>> > >>> but I just wanted to say that merb is solid as is, it works
>> and runs
>> > >>> very well in production. I think merb is kind of feature
>> complete
>> > >>> and
>> > >>> extensible enough that you can build whatever you want with
>> it as a
>> > >>> solid foundation.
The thing I'm more concerned is the 1.1 release we were promised and even more important, the "easy" upgrade path to rails 3 we were promised by releasing several versions of merb that would deprecate poco a poco the old api to make it more simple to upgrade to rails3. At least that's what I remember from the blog posts announcing the rails+merb merge but I might be wrong.
Again, there'll be more tonight, but we are ABSOLUTELY still planning on an
easy transition path. Since we announced the merge, we've been working hard
on cleaning up the internals of Rails so that such an upgrade path would be
possible. As I said at the time, a transition from one API to another is
relatively trivial, but a transition from a known API to the wilderness is
not. Several times, we've looked at starting to write some transitional APIs
for Merb, but realized we weren't far enough along in the Rails work to
justify doing so without really dicking around the Merb users. I think we're
finally far enough along to justify taking another stab at some transitional
work, though. More details later tonight :)
-- Yehuda
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Patrick Aljord <patc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The thing I'm more concerned is the 1.1 release we were promised and even
> more important, the "easy" upgrade path to rails 3 we were promised by
> releasing several versions of merb that would deprecate poco a poco the old
> api to make it more simple to upgrade to rails3. At least that's what I
> remember from the blog posts announcing the rails+merb merge but I might be
> wrong.
> Again, there'll be more tonight, but we are ABSOLUTELY still
> planning on an easy transition path. Since we announced the merge,
> we've been working hard on cleaning up the internals of Rails so
> that such an upgrade path would be possible. As I said at the time,
> a transition from one API to another is relatively trivial, but a
> transition from a known API to the wilderness is not. Several times,
> we've looked at starting to write some transitional APIs for Merb,
> but realized we weren't far enough along in the Rails work to
> justify doing so without really dicking around the Merb users. I
> think we're finally far enough along to justify taking another stab
> at some transitional work, though. More details later tonight :)
> -- Yehuda
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Patrick Aljord <patc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> The thing I'm more concerned is the 1.1 release we were promised and
> even more important, the "easy" upgrade path to rails 3 we were
> promised by releasing several versions of merb that would deprecate
> poco a poco the old api to make it more simple to upgrade to rails3.
> At least that's what I remember from the blog posts announcing the
> rails+merb merge but I might be wrong.
The promised post.
First of all, I'd like to freely admit that I haven't been putting much
effort into Merb over the past few months -- certainly less effort than I
expected. The reasons are a bit complex and multilayered.
First of all, working on Rails is a tremendously complex endeavor. Virtually
every area Carl and I go into starts a monthlong (or longer) effort to
understand the codebase, do some refactoring work, and try to understand how
it fits into the long-term goals (which include a Merb transitional plan).
Most importantly, since January, we have been working basically non-stop on
refactoring/rewriting ActionController::Base. That work is not exactly
complete yet, but we did a lot more than we expected, at the cost of more
time than we expected.
If you look at Merb, it's mostly an analogue to Railties and ActionPack.
ActiveRecord, ActiveSupport and ActiveResource have no analogue in Merb. As
a result, a transition from Merb to Rails mostly involves a clear path from
merb-core to ActionPack. Specifically, Merb controllers need to both live
side-by-side with Rails controllers (this means the router needs to be able
to dispatch to them, for instance), and it needs to be possible to
reimplement Merb's controllers in terms of a stripped down version of Rails'
controllers. In current master, that means writing a Merb::Controller that
inherits from ActionController::Http, an extremely simple, fast version of
Rails controllers with opt-in components.
All the work we have done so far (and some we have yet to do) will make that
transition possible. We could have started releasing some transitional
releases over the past six months, but that would have been mostly
guesswork, and we likely would have needed several different releases,
requiring app
changes, as we continued our work in Rails. As Ezra said, Merb is
mostly stable at this point, and we'd like to keep it that way until
we can offer something clear and compelling. We have some more work to
do, but making it possible to transition smoothly remains a high
priority for the Rails 3 release for Carl and I.
With regard to the rest of the plans for Merb 1.1, some of them will likely
be making it into a release pretty soon, while others will need to wait a
bit longer. For instance, when we release a new router for Merb, we want it
to be the one that will be available in Rails. Since that work is still
ongoing, we're holding off on providing something unstable that will require
multiple changes to your apps. On the other hand, improved bundling can come
pretty soon; Carl and I will be working on app-agnostic bundling during our
work on the initializer and should have something that works with Merb. Of
course, bundling is a complex topic and we want to get it right.
I know it sucks a little to be in this holding pattern, but we absolutely
have not forgotten about Merb (for example, Solo/Flex is still a thriving
Merb app--feeling good about asking them to upgrade to a transitional
release is a big part of the criteria for doing such a release); we just
want to make sure that when it comes time for us to ask people to start
moving, we can do so with confidence.
Hope that answers some of your questions--the delay has been more about
shielding you guys from the vagaries of Rails edge than anything else.
-- Yehuda
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Julian Leviston <jul...@leviston.net>wrote:
> Nice! :)
> It's a
> bit of a tip of the hat to merb, really... that it's taking a while to bring Rails up to the integration point...
> Wickkkkked :)
> Julian.
> On 29/06/2009, at 12:49 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote:
> Again, there'll be more tonight, but we are ABSOLUTELY still planning on an
> easy transition path. Since we announced the merge, we've been working hard
> on cleaning up the internals of Rails so that such an upgrade path would be
> possible. As I said at the time, a transition from one API to another is
> relatively trivial, but a transition from a known API to the wilderness is
> not. Several times, we've looked at starting to write some transitional APIs
> for Merb, but realized we weren't far enough along in the Rails work to
> justify doing so without really dicking around the Merb users. I think we're
> finally far enough along to justify taking another stab at some transitional
> work, though. More details later tonight :)
> -- Yehuda
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Patrick Aljord <patc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The thing I'm more concerned is the 1.1 release we were promised and even
>> more important, the "easy" upgrade path to rails 3 we were promised by
>> releasing several versions of merb that would deprecate poco a poco the old
>> api to make it more simple to upgrade to rails3. At least that's what I
>> remember from the blog posts announcing the rails+merb merge but I might be
>> wrong.
It doesn't suck at all, it just helps to have perhaps bi-weekly (monthly?) updates on what's going on - even if it's just "we're still working on blah" ;-)
The communication is key. We DEFINITELY realise that the ground is different than a map of the ground.... so any anticipation vs reality is most likely going to differ from each other...
> I know it sucks a little to be in this holding pattern, but we > absolutely have not forgotten about Merb (for example, Solo/Flex is > still a thriving Merb app--feeling good about asking them to upgrade > to a transitional release is a big part of the criteria for doing > such a release); we just want to make sure that when it comes time > for us to ask people to start moving, we can do so with confidence.
> Hope that answers some of your questions--the delay has been more > about shielding you guys from the vagaries of Rails edge than > anything else.
Thanks Yehuda, sounds good. I agree with Julian on getting more frequent updates about the status of Rails3/Merb2 even if things are not quite ready yet.
I am surprised and shocked to see 2 diffreent answers from the authors
of the same book." Rails 3 in Action. "
Yehuda says.... " Merb 2 == Rails 3
Which we all appreciate, and they are working hard on that promise
Mike G recently said on Tweeter... " Merb is dead "
Chk here http://bit.ly/176Ol
I cannot understand, how can Mike G can make such statement, being a
responsible author of a book when Yehuda and Carl are putting their
Blood and Sweat in their Merb 2 == Rails 3 promise.
> I am surprised and shocked to see 2 diffreent answers from the authors
> of the same book." Rails 3 in Action. "
> Yehuda says.... " Merb 2 == Rails 3
> Which we all appreciate, and they are working hard on that promise
> Mike G recently said on Tweeter... " Merb is dead "
> Chk here http://bit.ly/176Ol
> I cannot understand, how can Mike G can make such statement, being a
> responsible author of a book when Yehuda and Carl are putting their
> Blood and Sweat in their Merb 2 == Rails 3 promise.
> I strongly object this Merb statement by Mike G1
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 8:34 PM, MyMerb <mym...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I would like to ask this question to all Merb developers specially ... > (1) Yehuda and (2) Matt from Merb Core Team.
> Pl. be frank and honest.
> Question 1:- Is Merb 1.1 really coming, or plans are dropped
Merb 1.1 has been almost ready for a few weeks now. I was waiting for Carl's new router but as Yehuda explained things are not simple and maybe we should consider releasing 1.1 without the new router.
> Question 2:- Will the Merb progress die after Rails 3.0
The current core team won't be working on new features since we are working on Rails 3.0, but Merb will still be supported as will Rails 2.x be.
> Question:- Why there are no updates on Merb Information and Merb > Book..?
Mainly because we've all been really busy, that's certainly not a good excuse. I'm personally really busy at work, decided to spend more time with my family and also got involved in MacRuby on top of the Rails team.
We'll make an effort to communication better.
> Question:- Is Merb Core Team willing, All Merb developers should shift > to Rails 2.3.2 as soon as possible...?
I'd not recommend to switch from Merb to Rails 2.3.2, Merb is very stable and used by a lot of companies such as wikimedia, adobe, EY, many of my clients and many more. You should switch to Rails3 when it will be ready tho.
> Question:- Which great asests of Merb are coming in Rails 3.0..?
There are a lot of posts about that, check the latest rails conf talks.
> Finally...
> Question:- Should we stick to Merb or move away to Rails as soon as > possible..?
See previous answer above.
Regarding migration path... Since Rails3 isn't ready, there isn't much to migrate to. Engine Yard put Yehuda and Carl to work full time on Rails and I hope they will get them to work on the migration. My guess is that it will happen since they will need this migration for themselves (solo/flex).
Note that I totally understand your frustration. You got used to a bi-monthly release cycle and 1.1 still isn't out. I'm myself also a bit sad to notice that so little effort put on Rails is enriching Merb yet. However, I do believe things will change once Rails3 will be more mature and we will be able to start exchanging code.
- Matt
p.s: remember that Merb is a Free Open Source project and that it won't die. A new team is still free to keep on working on the framework if they see that's the way it should be.
Thanks Matt for answering all my questions honestly and perhaps better
than what i had expected.
Regarding Merb 1.1...
It would be better to go as per your old plans ( as mentioned on your
blog ). We all are waiting for new router and having Merb 1.1 without
new router does not sound a nice solution.
We already have waited a lot. A little more waiting will encourage us,
since we at least know whats going on. We are no more shooting in dark
now.
An informative explanation by Yehuda and Yours, have made our life
more happier as a Merb developer.
I think.. you should come out with New Router in Merb 1.1
Pl. take more opinions here, may be others share my idea or have
different ideas.
|
