Gaspard Bucher
2009-Aug-26 09:06 UTC
missing ''Content-Type'' header in ''send_data'' + zena advice
Dear list, This is one email with two questions: Question 1: There is a bug in send_file_headers! (3.0.pre: metal/streaming.rb): missing ''Content-Type'' => self.content_type The current test does not test the actual headers for this parameter. * Should I open a ticket with a patch for this ? Question 2: I intended to porting zena from rails 1.2.3 to 2.3 but need the new "inverse_of" patch which is only commited to 3.0.pre (AFAIK). * What is the status of the "master" branch ? Is it reasonable to work the transition there directly or is it broken more often then not ? Thanks for any advice, Gaspard --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
I am asking the question again since the subject of the original email was not very clear: I am porting zena from rails 1.2.3 to 2.3 but need the new "inverse_of" patch which is only commited to 3.0.pre (AFAIK). * What is the status of the "master" branch ? Is it reasonable to work the transition there directly or is it broken more often then not ? Thanks for any insight, Gaspard
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Gaspard Bucher<gaspard@teti.ch> wrote:> > I am asking the question again since the subject of the original email > was not very clear: > > I am porting zena from rails 1.2.3 to 2.3 but need the new > "inverse_of" patch which is only commited to 3.0.pre (AFAIK). > > * What is the status of the "master" branch ? Is it reasonable to work > the transition there directly or is it broken more often then not ?The master branch is *generally* stable, however it''s not recommended as a development target unless you''re comfortable hitting a few bumps every now and then. While we pretty much never commit code we *know* is broken, occasionally a refactoring we do could accidentally break your app or a plugin you use. Also, lots of plugins today won''t work on master. So yeah, you could do it, but if you''re still on 1.2.3 you''ve got a fair way to go first :). Some advice, when you''re doing your upgrade go from 1.2.3->1.2.6->2.0.x->2.1.x->2.2.x->2.3.x. Each step along the way will give you warnings which you can fix, rather than upgrading and having nothing work.> Thanks for any insight, > > Gaspard > > >-- Cheers Koz
Thanks a lot for the reply Koz. I''m glad to learn the *master* branch is stable enough: I don''t mind finding quirks (I''ll propose patches along the way if I can) and I don''t need to go in production right away. As for the transition: the application launches on 3.0.pre already and I have 1500 tests to show me what''s going wrong so I should not miss something important. I have also refactored some code with some of the niceties from recent versions of rails (nested_attributes, inverse_of, I18n, etc) so I think the direct jump to 3.0.pre will be actually easier. Thanks again, Gaspard On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Michael Koziarski<michael@koziarski.com> wrote:> > On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Gaspard Bucher<gaspard@teti.ch> wrote: >> >> I am asking the question again since the subject of the original email >> was not very clear: >> >> I am porting zena from rails 1.2.3 to 2.3 but need the new >> "inverse_of" patch which is only commited to 3.0.pre (AFAIK). >> >> * What is the status of the "master" branch ? Is it reasonable to work >> the transition there directly or is it broken more often then not ? > > The master branch is *generally* stable, however it''s not recommended > as a development target unless you''re comfortable hitting a few bumps > every now and then. While we pretty much never commit code we *know* > is broken, occasionally a refactoring we do could accidentally break > your app or a plugin you use. Also, lots of plugins today won''t work > on master. > > So yeah, you could do it, but if you''re still on 1.2.3 you''ve got a > fair way to go first :). > > Some advice, when you''re doing your upgrade go from > 1.2.3->1.2.6->2.0.x->2.1.x->2.2.x->2.3.x. Each step along the way > will give you warnings which you can fix, rather than upgrading and > having nothing work. > >> Thanks for any insight, >> >> Gaspard >> > >> > > > > -- > Cheers > > Koz > > > >