Are these two things friendly or just a bad idea? I have never been able to run the tests for 1.9.2 under 2-3-stable due to a "uninitialized constant ActiveSupport::OrderedHash" error. However, I can run basic rails 2.3 apps under 1.9.2 but notice that things like AR associations on a model can cause things to slow down so badly that 1.8.6 beats it.
If this expected is there a interest in fixing it? I ask because if 1.9.1 is not a 3.x friendly version but is what is expected for the max 2.3 app, then it makes a ruby vm upgrade path for said apps on deployed boxes a bit of a double jump. Thoughts? Sanity check?
- Ken
at least you should apply this patch:
--- a/association_collection.rb 2010-10-20 13:22:58.629947001 -0400
+++ b/association_collection.rb 2010-10-20 13:22:54.509947004 -0400
@@ -390,7 +390,7 @@
if block_given?
super { |*block_args| yield(*block_args) }
else
- super
+ super unless method.to_s == "respond_to_missing?"
end
elsif @reflection.klass.scopes.include?(method)
@reflection.klass.scopes[method].call(self, *args)
best
paul
> --
> 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 rubyonra...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-co...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
>
>
>
>
>
Gru�
Paul
!DSPAM:4cc986ce55518263013727!
Gruß
Paul
!DSPAM:4cc986ce55518263013727!
- Ken
> i am in the process of migrating a huge 2.3 app to 1.9.2
> at least you should apply this patch:
>
> http://groups.google.de/group/rubyonrails-talk/browse_thread/thread/d0d1e804f2fcac20/51798525d3b4929e?pli=1
>
>
So, if I have not completely gotten that wrong is there a reason why and would I be naive to even suggest a series of patches? I am thinking there is a big reason for the tests not running for 2-3-stable under 1.9.2 akin to why 1.9.1 is not considered an option for 3.x. If there is such a reason then patches would be a waste if time and a outside in hack since the tests could not be run to verify.
What should I do? What can I do to help?
I don't know of any reason why 2-3-stable *shouldn't* work with 1.9.2.
I'm personally not testing 2-3-stable against 1.9.2, but if you provide
patches to make it work, I'm happy to test and apply them.
--
Aaron Patterson
http://tenderlovemaking.com/
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 28, 2010, at 12:12 PM, Ken Collins <k...@metaskills.net> wrote:
During the 2.3.x release cycle we were tracking pretty close to 100%
1.9 compatibility (I think that was 1.9.1 then?), but the release
dates basically didn't line up. After 2.3.0 shipped the 1.9 series
diverged and a bunch of incompatibilities arrived. So yeah, it
definitely isn't deliberate.
The only potential gotcha with applying 1.9.2 related patches is that
they have to work with 1.8.6 too which was still in debian stable when
we shipped 2.3.x
--
Cheers
Koz
I commented on ticket #5410 about running the tests too. I would be happy to do some more profiling and finding ways of making 2-3-stable as fast as 1.9.1 once I figure out my test failure.
- Thanks for the feedback.
Ken
I have a couple of apps that run 2.3.x on old debian boxes with 1.8.6,
so perhaps I'm mistaken in terms of "official"" support, but it
definitely works fine :)
--
Cheers
Koz
I believe that requirement was introduced only for 3.0.