I am a few weeks from hopefully launching my site (Yes, I know like I may be tempting fate, even merely asking this question).
I am developing using SF 1.2.9 (using Propel ORM), but I am increasingly being tempted to upgrade to 1.4, least of all, I feel it will be less of an effort to migrate a life system from 1.4 to 2.0 later on, than from 1.2 to 1.4. Also, IIRC, active support for 1.2 is being phased out next year, whereas 1.4 is to be supported till 2012 (IIRC).
So, shall I bite the bullet and upgrade, or shall I take the (on the face of it - safer) option and stay put with 1.2.9?
If you want to use some of the new features, you should upgrade of course. As the symfony development is test driven, I assume the new versions are stable and reliable.
But: Do not upgrade to 1.4 but to version 1.3. The later has an extra compatibility layer to ensure that projects based on 1.2 still work. There are some internal changes in 1.4 that forces you to really refactor some parts of your project to keep it working. With 1.3 you can make this changes step by step.
The only differences between 1.3 and 1.4 is this compatibility layer. For specific instructions, read this upgrade guide.
As for support, 1.3 is supported until the end of next year which gives you plenty of time to upgrade to 1.4 step by step.
And in general I belief also that upgrading from 1.4 to 2.0 will be easier than from 1.2.
Edit:
You can find the changes here and the deprecated stuff here.
I don't know if 'internal changes' was the right word. There is some stuff you have to consider if you change to 1.4 but the deprecated stuff in 1.4 still works in 1.3.
I will try to upgrade one of my projects to 1.3 this weekend and I can give you feedback somehow if you want to.
Are their any compelling reasons for the upgrade? Does version 1.4 have more bug fixes, or additonal features that your appliation must have? Are their any breaking changes between 1.2.9 and 1.4? Is there any refactoring to do after you've upgraded to 1.4 from 1.2.9?
I'm looking at this from a .net framework perspective;
.net 1.1 to 2.0 - there were many changes here. many of them were breaking changes, but the benefits of the upgrade were great.
.net 2.0 to 3.0 or 3.5 - a lot of upgrades were introduced here, but not very many if any breaking changes since the last two upgrades were based on the same basic framework. You can live with the 2.0 version without upgrading to any of the other two.
So if the Symfony upgrade is similiar, I would wait for a little while. You've got your application built, tested and ready to go. See what it takes for the upgrade and then see about integrating the new features in during the next iteration of your development.
Good luck with your site, and hope this helps some.
Related
What is the difference between umbraco and vanila umbraco.
i'm currently using umbraco 6.2.1 version in my website.
Any special procedure available for upgrading this version to Vanila umbraco version.
Vanilla Umbraco means a fresh clean installation of Umbraco, without any customization.
Vanilla is a general term used for software, see also on wiki
Related to upgrading, one approach is to do a new installation of Umbraco (we can called it a vanilla installation) and then deploy your code, and migrate the content. Instead of the General Umbraco upgrade instructions.
I'd say that there is no running website with a vanilla Umbraco install. Umbraco is not a typical CMS. You are customizing it as soon as you start setting up your site in it. This is partly due to a choice on the Umbraco HQ team's decision to store their settings in the same files where you change settings by using Umbraco, requiring you to merge certain files during the upgrade.
As for upgrading, I'll warn you, there are a few ways to install Umbraco (Web PI, Nuget, Zip file), and if you upgrade in a way different than you installed, it can be hell. Step one, back up your site (front-end file-system files and db)! If you did not install Umbraco via Nuget (in Visual Studio), do not upgrade via Nuget. You will regret it.
Umbraco upgrades are a problem.
If the versions are minor running the update-package umbracocms nuget might work, but it often leaves the project mismatching version assemblies elsewhere.
Upgrading Umbraco is a bit of a minefield. Soz
Umbraco is now at version 11 and have moved their code base from the .NET framework into .NET core. Newer version is offering so much more, block-list, block-grid, inline editing, so many new and improved property editors. Editing experience and working with the CMS has changed so much since version 6.
Vanilla Umbraco would a term for a non-configured, fresh install.
You can find out everything you need to know about Umbraco on their documentation pages.
https://docs.umbraco.com/getting-started
Umbraco is a free open source project so there is no cost if you want to roll your sleeves, dig in and move over to the newest version. There are some paid offerings as well that would give support if you needed it.
Now that they have moved away from the .NET framework and moved their code base over to .NET Core there is no longer a direct path to upgrade from version 8 and earlier to the most recent version 11.
I would recommend you set up a fresh install, configure and customize as desired and then move any relevant content over to your new site.
There are many articles out there detailing how others moved over to the newer version.
Good article here on how they upgraded from version 7 to the newer version 11.
https://skrift.io/issues/how-i-upgraded-my-umbraco-v7-project-to-umbraco-v11/
Worth the read if your planning on going down that path.
Good luck.
I'm just trying to understand the factors that are considered to decide that an application written in a lower version needs to be upgraded.
I would like to think it comes down to these factors:
The Rails team is pretty active and they remedy Rails core security issues as soon as they come across one. It would be nice to have your Rails version always updated which means your have all the security issues of the past addressed as well as open to further updates if they come along. You would not want an older version of Rails get in the way of a security update.
There are always performance improvements in almost every new version of Rails and optimization is an area to work in for Rails apps. You should take advantage of them by keeping your Rails version updated.
Its not only the Rails version, the underlying Ruby version also receives updates and performance improvements. The updated version of Rails makes use of these.
There is also the gem dependency issue. Gems also receive updates and security patches and at times, newer versions of these gems are not compatible with an older version of Rails.
It is easier to upgrade a Rails application to its next version than to its next|next|next|next version. Blog posts and migration guides are always online but if you are coming from a very very old Rails version, they will become very hard to follow.
Newer versions of Rails provide functionality that is not available in the older versions of Rails. It is always nice to have this functionality at your disposal. You never know you may need it in your project.
I made an example project in grails 2.3.8. How to upgrade to the newest version? No way to downgrade from version too?
It really depends on the differences between the versions. In a lot of cases you will get away with simply editing the version number in the application.properties file at the top of the project. There used to be a grails upgrade command which attempted to do some of the work for you but that approach proved to be problematic for a number of reasons so it was removed in Grails 2.4. The normal upgrade procedure now is to edit the version number, which can be done using the grails set-version command (which just updates application.properties, see http://grails.org/doc/latest/ref/Command%20Line/set-grails-version.html) and then reading release notes for any other particulars related to that release. Often the release notes suggest updating some specific plugins to specific version numbers for compatibility.
Downgrading generally could be done with the same approach. Depending on what is in your application you might run into problems going backwards in versions.
I hope that helps.
I have been working with rails 2.3.5. I am gonna start a new project on rails. Should i continue using the earlier version or should i hop on to rails > 3 ? If so which is the more stable version?
It is better to use rails 3.0.x version as these days lot of new plugins(like active_reload) are targeted only for 3.x version.
3.1.x have lot of cool features(like asset pipeline, saas integration, coffescript integration, etc), but its still a release candidate and I faced some issues while using it. I guess we have to wait for the stable 3.1.x release.
I have been using 3.0.7 for a while and found it to be very stable.
3.0.10 is recently released and you can easily upgrade to it from 3.0.7 any time you want in the future.
If you are stuck to 2.x version you will be missing cool features like mentioned here: http://net.tutsplus.com/tutorials/ruby/5-awesome-new-rails-3-features/
For a new project, I would use Rails 3.1 or for a bit more stability, 3.0.7. There are some noticeable differences compared to 2.3, but it will be supported for longer and most development of new gems and documentation are being written for Rails 3.
You should definitely NOT use 2.3 and earlier.
The Rails framework is improving at a steady pace and if there is a downside to that is that it can be a pain to upgrade from version to version, especially as regards to major version changes which introduce tons of backward incompatibilities.
Why then would you want to put yourself in the hole at the get go.
Another issue is how ready and mature is the ecosystem (ruby, popular gem packages, etc.). This leads you to consider whether you should start with 3.0.10 or 3.1 release candidate.
It turns out the great majority of gems working with Rails 3.0 is also working fine with Rails 3.1.
The little downside is that 3.1 is still in release candidate status but it's all but ready for final release and that should come within a matter of days or maximum a couple weeks (as of today Aug. 25, '11).
I would strongly recommend you start all new apps with 3.1. That's what I'm doing.
Disclaimer : I am totally new to Ruby on Rails but planning learning it.
This morning I have been reading there were two new Ruby On Rails releases (2.3.11 and 3.0.4).
I don't understand why people (the ROR community) are working (maintaining) different versions ? What are the benefits for developpers ?
Active development is not being done on the 2.x branch. However, there are lots and lots and lots of deployed 2.x applications in the wild, and given that yesterday's releases were security-related patches, they provided a patch for 2.x users.
Upgrading a Rails application from 2.x to 3.x is not necessarily easy or trivial, and it's unreasonable to expect that as a solution to a security hole, so the 2.3.11 release was made instead.
The benefit is for people who are still using the old version and for some reason does not want to or cannot upgrade to a newer version. It is standard practice that there is some maintenance of old versions.