A client is indicating that the Rails version I have installed on my Ubuntu servers (2.3.4) is not backward-compatible with the older Version 2.3.2.
I want to know if that is true or not before I attempt to install the older Rails.
Yeah but there can be some backward incompatible changes between two different versions. It's not new features. It's (usually unused) features removal. One concrete example is here : http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1612633/how-to-support-backwards-compatibility-with-the-changes-to-the-accept-header-hand
Damien MATHIEU
2009-10-26 16:15:35
That pretty clearly wasn't the problem that led to the question.
SFEley
2009-10-27 16:10:40
A:
Well, it is possible that you are using features that are only available on version 2.3.4 , and therefore they're not on version 2.3.2.
Check its changelog to see the differences.
Daniel S
2009-10-26 16:05:05
A:
Upgrading between even minor Rails versions often causes problems with old apps.
That said, 2.3.4 is the current recommended stable version so it would probably be worth biting the bullet and getting the 2.3.2 app running on it. Probably won't take very long, if you've got a decent test suite.
Luke Francl
2009-10-26 17:35:33
A:
There are also a few of bugs that are introduced. Like this one I found involving named scopes using includes. That was introduced in 2.3.3 and wasn't fixed in 2.3.4
EmFi
2009-10-26 18:26:51
A:
2.3.2 => 2.3.4 has been the most painless upgrade so far for us (large app with lots of legacy, rails 1.x code).
The only major issues we had were with after_initialize vs exists?.
It all varies app by app. If you are hosting a client's app, then you should provide gems of all rails versions (they will happily sit side by side (90% of the time)).
cwninja
2009-10-26 18:37:37
+1
A:
the beauty of rubygems. just install both versions and have them specify which version in their environment file problem solved who cares if its compatible or not
ErsatzRyan
2009-10-26 20:37:58