Am 07/18/2013 08:41 PM, schrieb janI:
On 18 July 2013 20:12, Dave Fisher<dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Jul 18, 2013, at 9:43 AM, janI wrote:
On 18 July 2013 16:50, Rob Weir<robw...@apache.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:33 AM, janI<j...@apache.org> wrote:
On 18 July 2013 15:29, Rob Weir<robw...@apache.org> wrote:
We have the opportunity to restructure the pages on our CWiki. When
looking over the current structure it looks like we've been taking two
entirely different approaches to organizing the information:
1) A team-oriented approach, where at the top organizational level
there are parent pages for each team, dev, qa, doc, l10n., etc.
2) A release-oriented approach, where the top level is a specific
release, like AOO 3.4.1 or 4.0, and subpages are used for status and
plans for functional groups.
These two approaches look like they are both being used, but not
consistently.
I wonder if would be worth being more consistent, and doing something
like:
1) Have a top-level page for each functional group, for tracking
release-independent information, e.g., links to useful other pages,
lists of volunteers, "how to" information. The stuff that does not
change from release to release. It is information about the team and
what they do, not information about tasks for a specific release.
2) Then have top-level release-specific pages, where we store plans
and status reports, dashboards, etc., associated with a release.
I think this is not so far from what the CWiki was evolving toward.
If we anyhow think about restructuring, why not also think of a merge
with
mwiki...it does not seem correct that we need all these flavours of
wiki,
and it do cost maintenance.
Restructuring is just drag and drop in CWiki. Migration would be more
effort, but we could restructure while migrating. But a non-trivial
effort unless there is a tool that automates page conversion, moving
images, etc.
Exactly.
So because its complicated we keep maintaining at 2 different
products....We should have been a goverment agency.
Don't cast this kind of note about why we have two wikis. We got the CWiki
on day one of the project at Apache. The Mwiki remained at Oracle for many
months. (1) It took some time to get a volunteer named Terry E to do the
migration which you have taken over. Thank you. (2) Ask on #asfinfra if you
want to find out about the "difficulties" that occurred.
I know when AOO got CWIKI and also part of the remaining story. I have also
seen quite a lot of Terry E work (He has done quite a lot and I am sorry it
did not work out between him and infra).
on #asfinfra (where I am online) root@ already told me some time ago about
the initial setup and terry E. These difficulties was more "setup" type
problems and not really conversion problems (acc. infra)
As a maintainer of several servers, I think its normal to think how can we
do better....I cannot see why I should not raise concerns, when I have
them, to me an argument about a thing being complicated is not an argument
for not doing the right thing. Admitted I did not need to write the agency
part, but I really feel stuck in the discussion.
The CWiki serves its purpose very well.
I am sure it does, and did not dispute that....I am solely thinking of our
stretched maintenance resources (including infra), at some point we do need
to consolidate our information stores.
We have our different www's, different wikis and a blog all containing bits
and pieces of information, some of it redundant (and often not maintained
in some of the flavours), on top of that we have the forums.
My point is, independent how difficult it is, we should target a
consolidated set of information, with a clear signal, where which info is
kept.
But I get your point, and wont press further for a simpler maintenance.
If the project wants to move to one wiki - sure go ahead. I'll help
however I can when I have time. I would perfectly happy to longer have to
Admin it which quite frankly has not been much of an effort. How much
effort has it taken to manage MWiki?
You already help a lot, thanks for that, and you are right it will be a
hard job to get it done after a community decision.
The balance is that the ASF manages Confluence, but the project must
manage our own MediaWiki.
I have no opinion on which systems shall survive, if we think CWIKI is the
better choice then so be it. But please dont forget ASF is you, me and many
others. What I mean is, when I maintain the servers, its hard to see if I
wear my AOO cap or my ASF/INFRA cap.
Since the ASF is considering WordPress as a replacement for Roller. Maybe
some of the CWiki content belongs there?
It is at the moment only a infra consideration and test. I have not dared
suggest it, but WP would be able to handle blog, cwiki, mediawiki and large
parts of www.
Anyone object to the deletion of the unused OOODEV cwiki?
+1
rgds
jan I
I have nothing against deletion.
And I think Jan means the same. ;-)
Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org