On Sep 6, 2011, at 10:02 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > My understanding that it really is a test build and it has *not* been > maintained in synchronization with the OpenOffice.org operating version. So > if that system started to be used as a production instance separate from > OpenOffice.org, it would be a fork and there would be some issues with that.
The plan was to put the existing wiki into read only and then do a final export. That export would be used to build the final ooo-wiki. The next step is to change the DNS. Once DNS is complete branding changes will be made. > > Also, I don't believe that would be an acceptable arrangement for Apache > Infrastructure, for important operational reasons. Someone from there can > explain the rules for having a MediaWiki server being sustained. Terry has said he will finish the work. It is possible that Drew can do it. I know that Terry was documenting everything for Infrastructure. Perhaps you should ask infra what they will require given the events of the last days. I also wonder what moderation and administrative situation exists on the Wiki and if there is any overlap beyond Terry and Drew between these two groups. Regards, Dave PS. A lot of us are older, let's have some consideration for other's health and stress levels. > > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Richards [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 08:32 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][wiki] Migration (was Re: Who Wants to build > OpenOffice?) > > As far as point 2, I thought Terry had completed the all of the migration > work and all that was left was to create a final export and cut over the DNS > entries? In my mind, if there is already a lot of content on the MW and the > Apache Foundation allows us to continue to use it, why not? > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:19 AM, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Pedro F. Giffuni <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Hmm ... >>> It looks like I missed where the decision to use MediiaWiki and >> deprecate confluence >>> was taken. I guess it was arranged with infra as long as MW is up to date >> and >>> the extensions are documented. >>> >>> I am not complaining though: it sounds like lazy consensus in action plus >> we can >>> always change mind later on and try the conversion script. >>> >> >> Do you have a counter-argument? I think the factors are at play were: >> >> 1) We have a huge amount of content already in MediaWiki from the >> legacy project. Although it might be converted to Confluence, the >> effort would be large. >> >> on the other hand >> >> 2) MediaWiki was not supported by Apache Infrastructure and getting it >> supported and migrated would require a lot of admin work >> >> So far, it looks like the admin effort has made more progress than the >> translation effort. Maybe not a final decision, but that is how it >> looks to me today. >> >> -Rob >> >>> Pedro. >> > > > > -- > --Matt >
