Vousk-prod.

Aaaah, ok, makes more sense

600 MB !! without the attachments ? We talked so much ?!! Or maybe there are the pictures in the export ?

Good news! Thanks @rich Injecting all that old posts in a ready-only archive section of the new forum will be the perfect solution!

What a pity, we'll switch forum just before the Guinness Book to state Wingnut Chronicles as the longest post ever made by the human race.

Ah cool ! That's great.

The fact the url is on babylon.com host has to do with DNS, it does not tell if the forum belongs to Babylon. DK said in the first post that he ask people at Discourse if they can offer to host BJS forum. At my ears that sounds as kind of a dependency, but maybe I've misunderstood the first post. Yeah we have not lost any data for now, and DK propose Rich to pay for keeping that old forum as an archive, but one day anything can happen when you are not in full control of your stuff ?

Yep! And the question now is: Is that new discourse forum a place where we really are autonomous, or will we depend on external futur choices constraining us to move again (and loose data) in several years?

This forum is not just a warm place where we drink beers, it is also the additional user manual of BJS, all the info and ideas written here ARE the references that allows people to actually use BJS in so many ways. --> +1 for a backup of every old posts. Because if we loose that old database, be prepared to 1. answer again everything already answered, 2. forget many excellent code tricks, 3. experience a significative drop of new BJS users due to lack of relevant info Also, while switching to a new empty forum, be prepared to tell people several times per day "this already has been answered here: url-to-old-forum-specific-post". --> +1 for trying our best to throw the old content somewhere in the new forum (dedicated section for instance)

...

Waaaah, amazing!! That was pretty fast, only three little years ?

la petite bande audio des familles ?

Wowww, ultra cool. ? Looks very promising.

Just to add my two cents. Sometimes keeping too much backward compatibility lead to awful paterns, ugly code and less and less optimised libs... I think we should avoid BJS to become an IE kind of mess ? Breaking changes are not convenient for users, but this is exactly what SEMVER is for. This is the price to pay to keep a strong tool over time. We sometimes have to dare to take some painful decisions to ensure powerfull and long life to the lib. Users can understand, accept and adapt. It is for their final good. "Simple, yet powerfull" does not mean "so simple you never have to adapt", it means "to use it you won't have to do lots of complicated coding weirdness". And "powerfull" means true direct power, not a degraded power due to twisted backward compatibility. My opinion ?

A better drummer can give you many good breaks, if you need some Always funny to put faces to forum peoples.

Excellent!