HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
heroku
heroku-buildpack-ruby
Ruby2013–2025
heroku / heroku-buildpack-ruby

heroku-buildpack-ruby

Heroku's classic buildpack for Ruby apps

4Distinct people
4Mentions
1Explicit recommenders
785GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Heroku's classic buildpack for Ruby apps

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

I'm really glad to see Heroku focusing on these types of optimizations. We've been using similar optimization strategies internally at my Rails consultancy for over a year [1],…

nthj used a recommendation phrase. One indexed comment matches. This is a phrase match, not a verdict.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:56:07 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year4 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2013-05-02 03:16:05 UTC to 2025-09-28 18:34:28 UTC.

0122013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments20132014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments20192020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2025

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20132013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20142014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20152015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

4 sources
I'm sorry but the article seems pretty biased, and doesn't really give any argument for why what happened would be in any way justified. Author keeps adding their own interpretation to Github comments and events, which — just by looking at the contents — are needlessly negative. For example [1] where commit message states > We've been continuing to backport bugfixs to the 1.7.x series just for Heroku, but unless Heroku joins Ruby Together I don't have enough time available to make sure that continues to happen. but OP claims it > was interpreted as leveraging his control over Bundler as a pay-to-play scheme I'm sorry but not supporting outdated versions of an open-source tool for a business is perfectly reasonable. Similarly, [2] was again is described as "was interpreted at the time as indicating the feature would be withheld from Bundle
Read the rest
r because Heroku had failed to pay Ruby Together.". This is not at all how I read it — the comment just says that the open source project has priorities and not all of them can be implemented given the level of funding it has. These are just two examples, but the article is riddled with wording like "blatant copying", "brazenly hypocritical", "was interpreted as [a bad thing]" etc. I just feel like reading a clearly lopsided political piece intended to incite negative emotions towards something/someone. There are just enough facts to make it sound fact-based, but enough of author's own feelings and interpretation that I'm not at all convinced. In fact, towards the end the author even states that there's been ~6 years where nothing of note happened, before the current drama. That seems like a relatively healthy situation? [1] https://github.com/heroku/heroku-buildpack-ruby/pull/385/com... [2] https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/issues/1811#issuecommen...
In Why I'm not rushing to take sides in the RubyGems fiasco
nthj·Feb 11, 2014Recommendation phrase
I'm really glad to see Heroku focusing on these types of optimizations. We've been using similar optimization strategies internally at my Rails consultancy for over a year [1], and it's amazing how much fun it is to ship features when you can add a small feature, check your test suite via CircleCI, and be live quickly thereafter. I remember the pain of deploying Huckberry [2] on Rails 3 a couple of years ago. Each deploy took ~6 minutes, and it'd drive us crazy. A whole lot of "Compiling!"-type [3] moments. (Back then, the Asset Pipeline compiled all of your assets twice: once with the real filename, once with the digest-filename: 'filename--f74c093df554be59d45d3c87920eba1f.js'. As you can imagine, this was quite slow.) This is one of the reasons I really love Heroku as a development platform. We're a 4-person shop—we can't spin off a r
Read the rest
esource to spend 2 weeks speeding up our deployment process. But with Heroku, we wake up one morning, and our processes our 40% faster. It's fantastic. [1] https://github.com/heroku/heroku-buildpack-ruby/pull/96 [2] https://secure.huckberry.com/ [3] https://xkcd.com/303/ [edit: formatting]
In Git Push Heroku Master: Now 40% Faster
I got started with React on a project last week. It's magic when it works, but initially it takes some thinking to figure out how all the components should fit together, and where the interactions should take place. It took me a while to figure out that my interactions on one component might trigger a method that should belong on a parent component a few levels up, and to have to pass that method down in the props for the child to call. React provides a syntax called JSX that looks a lot like regular HTML, but is transformed into native JS before it hits the React engine. It's brilliant, but requires node somewhere along the line to do the transformation. I got stung by this — building a Rails app, and Rails on Heroku ships with an ancient version of Node that causes the transformer to error out. Solution in the works (https://github.com
Read the rest
/heroku/heroku-buildpack-ruby/pull/177), but if you're using Rails and Heroku, stay away from JSX for now
In React: Another Level of Indirection

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.