On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 12:50 -0700, Kay Schenk wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Pedro F. Giffuni <giffu...@tutopia.com>wrote: > > > Hello; > > > > --- On Tue, 9/6/11, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > Pedro has already gone over to check > > > with Infrastructure about doing a test. > > > > > ... > > > > > > Regards, > > > Dave > > > > > > > Yes, here is the post I sent to the infrastructure guys. > > I guess they have the MW data and the confluence know-how > > but it will probably take some time to evaluate this so > > we cannot discard the MediaWiki VM just yet. > > > > Pedro. > > ________ > > Hi guys; > > > > Sometime ago I suggested this utility on the ooo-dev list: > > > > > > https://studio.plugins.atlassian.com/wiki/display/UWC/Universal+Wiki+Converter > > > > I didn't follow up on it because, as you know, there was a > > volunteer from the OOo community doing the MediaWiki > > configuration. > > > > Since the volunteer has left, perhaps infra could do a test > > conversion? This would probably not go as well as the bugzilla > > conversion but I think it would make it easier since we > > wouldn't have to find another admin and have the extra problems > > related to adapting new software to the Apache Infrastructure. > > > > Let me know if using this would be viable and you would like me > > to raise a JIRA issue. > > > > My recommendation (FWIW) would be to pass this on to infrastructure. Despite > the enormous respect I have for what it took to get MediaWiki up and running > for OpenOffice in the past, AND the amount of recent work that Terry did, I > can fully understand Rob's reasoning on this. As a group, we need to face > the fact that things are not what they used to be , and utliize the existing > expertise that's available to Apache OO.o now. > > Setbacks are very disheartening but we do need to learn from them I think. > It's unfortunate that exploring this alternate possibility may be construed > as ignoring and killing someone's efforts though -- LOTS of effort I might > add. I feel very very badly about that. Unfortunately, this seems to be > the nature of much reorganization, especially a reorganization on this > scale. > > So, you have my +1 on filing an issue to infra to explore this conversion.
+1 When I noted you had posted to the Infra list I thought that was a good thing - options are never a bad thing and actually getting someone to get a real idea on scope..wonderful. //drew > > > > Pedro. > > > > > >
