I think if someone want to modify admin, examples, or welcome, he could "pack all" and create a new app.
(2) is interesting because we can always see changes or new features at new version. To (2) became really easy, the default app could be set more easily than using routes. Maybe a link on admin, with [default] and [make default app] init really isn't a good name for a default app. and sometimes, we need to change the default app. 2009/12/2 mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> > For the future version of web2py.... > > > should we (1) continue to distribute admin.w2p, welcome.wp2, > examples.w2p and unpack them on startup (and require --upgrade=yes on > upgrade) or (2) should we just distribute the applications folder with > unpacked apps? > > The case (2) would simplify lots of stuff and avoid lots of problems. > > I originally choose (1) because I thought people were going to modify > admin and did not want an automatic upgrade of it. Some people for > example edit /applications/admin/models/access.py > > Pros? Cons? > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "web2py-users" group. > To post to this group, send email to web...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<web2py%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en. > > > -- Atenciosamente -- ========================= Alexandre Andrade Hipercenter.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To post to this group, send email to web...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en.
