Re: [Rails] Is Rails 3.0 obsolete?

[Hassan Schroeder]

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Elizabeth McGurty <emcg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> With this information, when I recently announced here that I had made some
> progress in better utilizing table associations, a member here, Colin Law,
> responded:
>
> "Rails 3.0 is long obsolete and, I believe, no longer receives even security
> updates, it should not be used for production applications."
>
> What are the facts here?

http://weblog.rubyonrails.org/2013/2/24/maintenance-policy-for-ruby-on-rails/

--
Hassan Schroeder ------------------------ hassan.s...@gmail.com
http://about.me/hassanschroeder
twitter: @hassan
Consulting Availability : Silicon Valley or remote

[Sunkuru Abhishek]

Support to Rails 3.0 is stopped.You can use Rails 3.2.X

[Xavier Noria]

The maintenance policy is documented in this guide:

    http://guides.rubyonrails.org/maintenance_policy.html

As you see, 3.0 is unmantained, and so is 3.2 for the most part since it would get fixes only for severe security issues.

[Colin Law]

On 3 June 2015 at 23:11, Elizabeth McGurty <emcg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have build an application. My shared web server is with DreamHost. The
> permitted Rails version is 3.0.3, and permitted Ruby version is 1.8.7.

I know you said you did not want me to try to help you, but this
apparently tells you how to install a later version of Rails (and
Ruby, since 1.8.7 is also out of support) on Dreamhost.
http://wiki.dreamhost.com/RVM

I cannot personally see any reason to start a new application with
anything other than the latest current version of Rails. I believe
even 3.2.x will go out of support very shortly, though I cannot
immediately find the announcement where I believe I saw that.

Colin

[Xavier Noria]

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Colin Law <cla...@gmail.com> wrote:

I cannot personally see any reason to start a new application with
anything other than the latest current version of Rails.  I believe
even 3.2.x will go out of support very shortly, though I cannot
immediately find the announcement where I believe I saw that.

It is a consequence of the maintenance policy linked above.

Note the guide documents the general rules, and then to ease things says what the rules mean today in terms of specific version listings. But the rules are what matters.

3.2 is getting fixes for **severe** security fixes (not bug fixes, not regular security fixes for some value of regular), because it is the last major release series.

When Rails 5 is out, the last major release series is going to be Rails 4, so Rails 3.2 is not going get any update of any kind. Frozen.

[Colin Law]

On 4 June 2015 at 08:49, Xavier Noria <f...@hashref.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Colin Law <cla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I cannot personally see any reason to start a new application with
>> anything other than the latest current version of Rails. I believe
>> even 3.2.x will go out of support very shortly, though I cannot
>> immediately find the announcement where I believe I saw that.
>
>
> It is a consequence of the maintenance policy linked above.

Yes, you are right, thanks. I had not read it carefully enough.

Cheers

Colin

[Frederick Cheung]

On Wednesday, June 3, 2015 at 11:11:41 PM UTC+1, Elizabeth McGurty wrote:

I have build an application.  My shared web server is with DreamHost.   The permitted Rails version is 3.0.3, and permitted Ruby version is 1.8.7. 

With this information, when I recently announced here that I had made some progress in better utilizing table associations, a member here, Colin Law, responded:

"Rails 3.0 is long obsolete and, I believe, no longer receives even security updates, it should not be used for production applications."

What are the facts here?   Are none of you using Rails 3.x?

You've had some answers about rails, but ruby 1.8.7 is also no longer receiving security updates from the ruby core team (some linux distributions are back porting security fixes).

Even if you are stuck on rails 3.0.x, you really don't want to use 3.0.3 - the last in that series was 3.0.20 - you're missing out on nearly 2.5 years of bug fixes & security fixes,such as

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rubyonrails-security/61bkgvnSGTQ

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rubyonrails-security/DCNTNp_qjFM

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rubyonrails-security/l4L0TEVAz1k

You are almost certainly vulnerable to remote code execution, sql injection etc.

Fred

[James Davis, PhD]

Obsolete is a relative term. Would you buy a car when there was no way to obtain replacement parts? As a soldier, I wouldn't want to go into battle with WWII equipment....but it is better than using Civil War equipment.

Rails 3.x was a great version with many improved features but there no way I would start a new project with 3.0.3.

[Frederick Cheung]

On Friday, June 5, 2015 at 1:00:37 PM UTC+1, Elizabeth McGurty wrote:

My site -- www.echomarket.org -- is humanitarian in purpose, and non-profit.  Which is not to say that it doesn't deserve the best environment.   I would be more than happy to embrace the most recent version of Rails.  However, I have been constrained by finances at both the level of a Rails IDE and my web server (host) provider.   When my site experiences more participation and hopefully corresponding donations, then I will look into assuming more expense.  However, in the meantime, if you are aware of a free or very inexpensive Rails host that is committed to upgrading with new Rails releases, I would love if you share that information. 

heroku is a good place to start. It can get expensive at the high end but they have some free and low cost plans that are great for getting started. 

Fred

[Mike]

Liz, the point above about using RVM (or similar) is that you can install in your user account the latest versions of ruby and rails without issue, however, being a longish user of Dreamhost myself (although I dont host 'customer' websites there myself), because of their lack of official support for later stuff (last time I looked)

That being said however, you can get a VPS with someone like Digital Ocean (or many others) for anywhere from $5 a month upwards, and for a small traffic site, that is probably more than enough.

If you are not doing 'devops' functions (i.e you know how to code in Ruby/Rails but are not aware of all the nuances of running a server  - patching/upgrades etc), then you may need to learn a few things, however, if you want to talk to me off-list I can give you some pointers. Looking at Dreamhosts current offfers, you are probably paying more than $5 a month for the hosting anyway.

Depending on where you want to host (country), you can find lots of very good offers on www.lowendbox.com, which will give you VPS you (virtually) control, so you can install what you need on them for (in most cases) %5-$10 per month.

On Friday, 5 June 2015 13:00:37 UTC+1, Elizabeth McGurty wrote:

My site -- www.echomarket.org -- is humanitarian in purpose, and non-profit.  Which is not to say that it doesn't deserve the best environment.   I would be more than happy to embrace the most recent version of Rails.  However, I have been constrained by finances at both the level of a Rails IDE and my web server (host) provider.   When my site experiences more participation and hopefully corresponding donations, then I will look into assuming more expense.  However, in the meantime, if you are aware of a free or very inexpensive Rails host that is committed to upgrading with new Rails releases, I would love if you share that information. 

Thanks,

Liz

[Wale Olaleye]

Liz,

You need to be aware that there are two components to upgrading a Rails app. 

1) The first and most important part should be done by a seasoned developer. This happens on their local dev environment. The developer changes Ruby, Rails and dependent gems and may need to rewrite parts of your app to ensure it still works. Some gems that your app uses may no longer be maintained, and your Rails code may be using code that has been removed in newer versions. This effort required here is depends on the age between your current and destination versions.

2) The second piece is upgrading your hosting environment. Some hosting platforms make this part super easy, but it's generally not too difficult to accomplish.

If you do 2) before 1) you will most likely have a completely broken app. That's why there is no automatic upgrade path.

Bottom line: you need an experienced developer to upgrade your Rails app.

-Wale

railsfever.com

On Wednesday, June 3, 2015 at 6:11:41 PM UTC-4, Elizabeth McGurty wrote:

I have build an application.  My shared web server is with DreamHost.   The permitted Rails version is 3.0.3, and permitted Ruby version is 1.8.7. 

With this information, when I recently announced here that I had made some progress in better utilizing table associations, a member here, Colin Law, responded:

"Rails 3.0 is long obsolete and, I believe, no longer receives even security updates, it should not be used for production applications."

What are the facts here?   Are none of you using Rails 3.x?

Thanks,

Liz McGurty