[typo] Deploying Ruby on Rails Applications (was: Re: Can't update feeds?)

[Chet Farmer]

On Jul 16, 2008, at 7:12 PM, Scott Likens wrote:
>> Are you really saying you can't compare a Ruby app with a LAMP app?  
>> That's ridiculous. How else can someone decide between Typo and MT  
>> and WP and etc?
>>
>> No, you're just wrong. It makes PERFECT sense to compare the  
>> experience of setting up and using Application X with that of using  
>> Application Y if both X and Y are competitors in the same market  
>> (i.e., blogging software).
>
> As I said above, you are doing nothing useful in this argument.   
> Stop it.  If you care that much passionately, then run Wordpress.   
> The argument is self defeating, because you are comparing apples to  
> pears.  You can try this argument on a Django list and see how far  
> you get.

The problem here, Scott, is that you're the one who's arguing. I  
stated an uncontroversial position -- RoR apps are harder to deploy  
than traditional LAMP apps -- and you've gone all apoplectic with  
fanboy protestations that, frankly, make no sense.

Look: I don't care. It's absolutely not important to me today, and I'm  
100% done with you. I have problems with Typo that Fred says he's  
working on, and I appreciate that. What I do NOT appreciate is your  
incessant browbeating and bombastic Ruby boosterism.

>>> Why on earth would you need to run a second web server? That seems  
>>> like a really bad idea, frankly, hence my annoyance that the most  
>>> obvious question (which boils down to "WTF?", essentially)  isn't  
>>> addressed.
>
> Then I suggest you to take that torch up with the Mongrel Mailing  
> list and ask them.

If it's something that's considered a common part of a Typo install,  
then the Typo docs need to address it because it's out of the ordinary  
for weblogging software.

> To Quote from http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/UnderstandingMigrations

I'll read this later. I am refreshed, however, that you've provided an  
apparently useful link.

> In essence, your database has a 'version' number in it, and if  
> someone adds a new model, or changes a model a migration is also  
> made.  So that you can run 'rake db:migrate' to ensure your database  
> is "up to date" and able to do what the new version intends to do.

Why is this better than just dropping the SQLite file into the tree  
after your re-install? (Hypothetically; I haven't tried it.)

>>> Of course you'll have to reinstall your plugins and themes.
>>
>> !!!!
>>
>> To put it mildly, that's a bit bizarre and very unfriendly to the  
>> user.
>
> With the exception of plugins and themes, I find the upgrade process  
> very relaxing and totally capable.

It's plugins and theme reinstallation I find bizarre.

>>> I believe as a standard practice
>>
>> Maybe for Typo. Not for anything else I use.
>
> Remind me not to hire you as a Systems Administrator.

Based on my exposure to you here, it seems astoundingly unlikely  
you'll ever be in a position to hire anyone with my resume.

My reference here is to the need to reinstall plugins and themes, not  
standard pre-patch/pre-upgrade backups. In my career so far, my  
experience is much more defined by my own refusal to hire doctrinaire  
platform zealots.

> Not to mention that is part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance Matrix (http://www.crcdataprotection.com/solutions/sox_compliance.asp 
> )

SarBox is so often a part of blog culture.

> Because clearly I don't get it, and won't get it.


This, at least, is abundantly clear.

<plonk>

Chet Farmer
----
"When you've got an RV, a jet pack, and a monkey you really don't need  
much actual content"  - KS