On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Jeff Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm beginning to wonder if "merge" is the right word for what is happening > with Rails? I've seen Yehuda in a talk a few months ago say that while the > "Merb/Rails Merge" started out as exactly that, a merge, it's now looking > more like just "the next version of Rails." To me, that says Rails is
Haha. I've been hoping that a few others to come out of their shells a bit. Admittedly though this particular outcome was pretty obvious right from the start. > adopting some "Merbisms" in to its next version, but Rails will maintain its > own identity separate from Merb and we really should think of the two as > separate projects each with their own pros and cons. > > Thanks, > > -J If Yehuda leaves Merb in favor of rails, it still makes good sense to continue using and maintaining Merb. Absoloutely. Or think of it this way: More fun to maintain whilst Merb has a smaller codebase than Rails 3. Wheras in Rails: Submit a 1.9 compatibility fix to Lighthouse. Wait about 6 month. It's still not merged. Begin cycle again. :) Heh i'm not complaining. Honestly the people who merge the stuff to a great job. Its just the experience what its like to be a contributor over there. dreamcat4 [email protected] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "merb" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/merb?hl=en.
