Michael, Ben, I see what you mean now.
In case of "toy" production env (which most of us has) - I guess it doesn't matter that much. For the "real" large environment involving a lot of setup, maintenance and many people - it's a difference. But in the latter scenario it would probably be a single app for the company with one Ruby version. So RVM is just a wrong tool anyway. But what other options do we have to run 2 ruby versions? On 28 July 2011 14:07, Ben Hoskings <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't mean setup difficulty - I agree RVM is really easy to set up. > > I mean, if you have path issues on the production box, or something else > breaking the ruby runtime, it's an order of magnitude easier to debug if RVM > isn't involved, because there's no shell fiddling going on. > > > On 28/07/2011, at 1:53 PM, Dmytrii Nagirniak wrote: > > >> Ahh, reading Ivan's message, it's obvious now - to automatically select > a > >> ruby per project. > >> Are there other common uses? > >> > > > > I think that's the primary one. > > > > Ben, in terms of complexity, maybe I am missing something, but installing > > RVM took me the least amount of time. > > > http://blog.approache.com/2011/05/setting-up-ubuntu-1104-server-for-rails.html > > > > And later installing Ruby was a breath. I don't really feel like it adds > > complexity. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> —Ben > >> > >> > >> On 28/07/2011, at 1:33 PM, Simon Russell wrote: > >> > >>> I work with Michael Pearson; I'm one of the people who torments him by > >>> insisting on checking in .rvmrc files. I'm probably also one of the > >>> people who doesn't have a problem with RVM in production, but I > >>> haven't tried using some of the more recent releases. Certainly the > >>> random changes don't help. It seems that if Wayne stopped insisting > >>> people always use the latest version, it wouldn't be such a problem to > >>> automate. > >>> > >>> As for .rvmrc, I haven't yet heard a good reason why checking it in is > >>> bad, and I can think of a few reasons it's convenient. I can be > >>> convinced though; and I haven't done a lot of searching to find > >>> opinions conflicting with mine :) > >>> > >>> Simon. > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 13:15, Julio Cesar Ody <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>>> Which is what I said on the first email I sent to the thread. Michael > >>>> was talking specifically about sandboxing gems. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thursday, July 28, 2011, Dmytrii Nagirniak <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On 28 July 2011 12:25, Julio Cesar Ody <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> @ Michael: agreed, that's what Bundler is for. Again, should you > >>>>> always run your apps on the same version of Ruby, it is a waste of > >>>>> time. > >>>>> > >>>>> That's not why RVM exists. If everything you run is on one ruby > version > >> then there's no point of using RVM at all.In this case RVM is a tool > that > >> solves no problem. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> But if you do need multiple versions of Ruby - RVM is the right tool > >> for the job. > >>>>> At least that's my view on it. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Pat Allan < > [email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>>>>> I don't like the idea of checked-in .rvmrc files at all - granted, I > >> don't work with any large teams though :) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Pat > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 28/07/2011, at 12:15 PM, Michael Pearson wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> The .rvmrc thing was the easiest to work around, and if we'd really > >> needed them, I would have either hacked/forked RVM. I'm the only > developer > >> at my work that thinks that .rvmrc checked into a repo is a bad idea :) > >> (gemsets? that's what bundler is for! and we're all using ruby-1.9.2 > >> anyway!) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It was the constant changes to the install process / defaults that > >> killed it for me. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Julio Cesar Ody < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>> Yeah, I read it. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >> > http://serverfault.com/questions/227510/is-it-possible-to-skip-rvmrc-confirmation > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Michael Pearson > >>>>>>> The Bon Scotts; http://www.thebonscotts.com > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >> Groups "Ruby or Rails Oceania" 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/rails-oceania?hl=en. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >> Groups "Ruby or Rails Oceania" 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/rails-oceania?hl=en. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >> Groups "Ruby or Rails Oceania" 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/rails-oceania?hl=en. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >> Groups "Ruby or Rails Oceania" 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/rails-oceania?hl=en. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >> Groups "Ruby or Rails Oceania" 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/rails-oceania?hl=en. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > >> "Ruby or Rails Oceania" 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/rails-oceania?hl=en. > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > >> "Ruby or Rails Oceania" 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/rails-oceania?hl=en. > >> > >> > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby or Rails Oceania" 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/rails-oceania?hl=en. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby or Rails Oceania" 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/rails-oceania?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby or Rails Oceania" 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/rails-oceania?hl=en.
