Hi there, My 3 cents.
1. Ignore those people advocating a "backward-incompatible" web2py 2.0. They did not even provide a reasonable must-have backward- incompatible feature wishlist. Shall we release a backward- incompatible version of web2py just for, being backward-incompatible? Nonsense. 2. According to Bruno Rocha's recommendation of Semantic Versioning [1] (and thank you Bruno), I really like the idea and will vote for a 1.100 instead of 2.0. Under our "always-backward-compatible" philosophy, there should never be a web2py 2.0, but we will have a web3py 1.0 in future. (Perhaps web4py 1.0 in even longer future.) 3. The "alphabetic comparison in which case 100 is less than 99" is considered a bug which will be fixed by web2py 1.99 according to Massimo. That is already good enough. For those people who would skip web2py 1.99, it is not a big disaster anyway. They can have a manual upgrade later, which is a very little acceptable cost. Regards, Ray (a.k.a. Iceberg) [1] http://semver.org/ On Sep 22, 1:25 am, Massimo Di Pierro <massimo.dipie...@gmail.com> wrote: > True. In fact 1.99 will resolve this problem but some people may jump > from 1.98 to 1.100 (pardon, 2.00) without passing through 1.99. > > On Sep 21, 11:20 am, pbreit <pbreitenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yeah, I suspect it's doing an alphabetic comparison in which case 100 is > > less than 99.
