If you have a server, then you can always setup your own confluence for free, or buy a personal limited license for $10 for 10 users.
Apache CWiki is on a version 3.4 while the current version is 3.5. See http://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/try.jsp Atlassian has a sandbox as well: http://sandbox.onconfluence.com/display/ds/Plugins+Installed+on+this+Confluence+Site This link might help: http://www.atlassian.com/search/?query=mediawiki HTH, Dave On Sep 8, 2011, at 12:29 PM, Matt Richards wrote: > Yeah, I've kinda ran into a similar problems when I originally volunteered > to help. I don't know how to go about it, without access to various data > dumps and such that it appears only Contributors/PPMC members have access > to. > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Pedro F. Giffuni <[email protected]>wrote: > >> --- On Thu, 9/8/11, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: >> ... >>> I see you closed INFRA-3917. >>> >> >> I like to clean my own mess, yes. >> >>> Keep in mind that there appear to be others willing to >>> struggle with Confluence migration (CWiki?). >>> >> >> That makes me very happy! >> >> Anyone can reopen the issue: the problem I see is that >> it's basically only infra@ that can do this conversion: >> I have no idea if/how someone else can mirror the original >> information and assuming we can get a dump (which will >> likely be big) after running the conversion it has to >> be uploaded in the CWiki server for review. >> >>> A problem to consider in contingency planning: What it >>> means to lock down the current wiki during conversion. >>> And is the MW kept running for read-only viewing while >>> conversion takes place, either bit by bit or >>> wholesale? Parallel live operation does not >>> appear practical. >>> >> >> It depends: if the conversion script is fast and we are >> not really editing our MW VM, I wouldn't worry about >> locking, specially just for a test conversion. If >> we see the test conversion could produce some >> workable result we could use a snapshot. >> >> I agree it will be tough but if we could rescue say >> 60% of the information, it would certainly be worth it. >> >>> I think Confluence migration remains as a >>> potentially-necessary Plan B or a potential following Plan A >>> if needed for the long run. The analysis TerryE >>> provided suggests that it won't be easy whenever it is >>> done. I'm thinking it should not be done first if MW >>> can be operated in the short term. >>> >> >> I agree, there's just not anything I can personally do >> about it and this being about *doing* and not just >> proposing I felt it was a matter of honesty to close >> the issue :(. >> >> Pedro. >> > > > > -- > --Matt
