Another +1 for the doco - keep it up to date ! The quality of the Book was what initially caught my eye with web2py. I thought "%^&*%, I've never seen app doco done so well". It's a big drawcard. Well done to whoever put it together.
Andrew On Sep 21, 5:28 pm, Rahul <rahul.dhak...@gmail.com> wrote: > I like the idea that we are not breaking backward compatibility here . > Backward Compatibility not supported with web3py will be fine. > Rahul > > On Sep 21, 10:19 am, Massimo Di Pierro <massimo.dipie...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > WE WILL NOT BREAK BACKWARD COMPATiBILITY. > > > In fact there will be less changes between 1.99 and 2.0 then between > > 1.98 and 1.99. > > > Massimo > > > On Sep 20, 11:23 pm, guruyaya <guruy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > -1 for breaking compatibility. I can see the need here and there, but > > > I have some apps running on web2py, and thinking that I'll have to > > > make sure they work aain, just because we got to a rounded number - is > > > unthinkable. When web2py moves to python 3 - it'll make sense to > > > reexamine all features. But for now - leave it backword compatible. > > > OH, and +1 for the docs. But that has nothing to do with the version, > > > but has more with creating a policy about new features (like, no > > > commit without a document of a feature, including example). Some > > > policy should be applied to doctests too. > > > > On Sep 21, 6:16 am, Massimo Di Pierro <massimo.dipie...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > we'll work on it. > > > > > On Sep 20, 6:49 pm, niknok <nikolai...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Web2Py 2.0 must be *fully* documented in online book. > > > > > > On Sep 20, 4:26 pm, Mengu <whalb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > anything special coming up? > > > > > > > will it broke backward compatibility? nobody needs backward > > > > > > compatibility in a major version. > > > > > > > are there any plans for a clean up?
