On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:11 PM, TJ Frazier <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 9/6/2011 18:12, Rob Weir wrote: > >> > >> Moving this point to its own thread > >> > >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:03 PM, drew<[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 17:30 -0400, TJ Frazier wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 9/6/2011 13:43, Matt Richards wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Well, I thought Terry has resigned from the project according to > >>>>> another > >>>>> thread, leaving the wiki migration at a bit of a stand still. Figured > I > >>>>> could step in and pick up where he left off on this. Am I able to, as > a > >>>>> non-contributor reach out to Apache Infra on this (from what I read > it > >>>>> seems > >>>>> the infra ML are for existing contributors only)? Not sure who all is > >>>>> involved at this point. > >>>> > >>>> As Pedro commented, you don't need a newbie to help with the > conversion. > >>>> But in the long run, I volunteer to learn whatever is needed to > support > >>>> the MW system. All I have to offer is that I am a sysop on the live > >>>> wiki, > > > > <snip> > >> > >> Another option to consider is that of content translation: MediaWiki > >> to Confluence. Remember. Confluence is fully supported by Apache > >> Infra. We would also find a lot of people on the list who could help > >> write and test wiki text conversion code. It is just string > >> manipulation, right? How hard can that be? Even I can help with > >> that. > >> > >> But seriously, the MW plans were always precarious. We did not have a > >> deep bench of expertise on the sys admin side of that package. Even > >> if we have a volunteer or two step in now, aren't we still rather > >> thin? Wouldn't we still be one "life change" away from being back > >> where we are now? But if we can figure out a content-level migration > >> to Confluence wiki, then we would have something much more sustainable > >> long term. > >> > >> Just an idea. > >> > >> -Rob > >> > > My question is, "Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki /at all?/ " > > > > Q: Why does everybody use Cwiki? > > A: Infra supports it. > > Q: Why does Infra support Cwiki? > > A: Everybody uses it. > > Hmm. "Very interesting," as Arte Johnson used to say. > > > > This is true, but there is more here than may be immediately evident. > > The fact that a service is widely supported by Apache Infra is very > important. Remember, we no longer have Oracle's full-time web admin > staff to mind the OOo severs. We'll soon be independent of that and > Apache will be responsible for routine maintenance, upgrades as well > as responding to problems. > > And we must not underestimate the potential for problems. Apache is a > high profile target. So is OpenOffice. Mix them together and the > question is not "if" someone will attack our website and try to take > it down. The question is "when?". > > I don't say that to scare you. Just to point out reality. > > It is worth looking back at the note from Mark Thomas [1] sent to the > list back in July, to understand what it means to be using an > unsupported server app at Apache: > > "The much more important question is who will support it. There have > been far too many examples of projects requesting a service, promising > to help support it and then never being heard from again when it needs > maintenance. If the current maintenance is performed by Oracle rather > than the community there will be concerns about the viability of that > model. > > On a related note, infrastructure will not tolerate project managed > systems that are insecure. We will shut them down first and ask > questions later. Projects are expected to keep on top of security for > the services that they manage. We do arrange things so projects can > only shoot themselves in the foot but will still expect security to be > maintained. " > > I fully acknowledge that moving to CWiki would result in an imperfect > translation of the content that will take additional effort to clean > up. And that moving to MWiki will be faster. But we only need to > migrate once, right? But we need to maintain this for the next 10 > years. That is why I talked about CWiki being "more sustainable". > Sure, it is pain now. But we'll have much more help at Apache going > forward if we're using the same software that everyone else uses. If > we use MWiki, we may migrate faster, but we'll be shut down at the > first sign of a problem. > > I'm not saying the MWiki is unworkable. But if we really want this to > work, long term, then we should be looking to have a solid base of > admin experience to help maintain it in the long term. Not just help > migrating, but longer term. And not just one person, but maybe 3 > people who know it well and another 2 who can start learning it now. > Remember, the OOo wiki was not just a little thing on the fringes of > the project. It was at the center of how the project was run. Having > a sustainable wiki is essential for the AOOo project. > > [1] http://markmail.org/message/b23uko3fro5ijqkz > > > -Rob > So....what's the status of the basic info port from MW to cwiki right now? Any news? Yeah--the template conversion dos look a bit hairy, and since I know NOTHING about this at all, well, who knows. TJ's somewhat correct in the help aspects, but I find the help available to the project now using cwiki not bad actually. The User Guide for Confluence is HUGE but really, I don't know how many more advanced aspects would be needed or used by 90% of the users. > > > *Personal gripes.* > > My biggest gripe with Cwiki is the help; the file is neither searchable > nor > > editable (do that in Mwiki to see how an example /really/ works); it is > also > > in need of some serious editing. (To be fair, I have not yet explored > their > > User Guide, but I will.) It is not clear to me that Apache users are best > > served by Confluence. > > > > *Conversion problems.* > > Terry sized this as "man-years of effort". I agree. > > Going the other way (Cwiki to Mwiki) should be, as Rob wrote, "just > string > > manipulation", because MW is richer in features than CW, so a good > > translation possibility exists. It may not exist in reverse. > > > > One big snag is the MW templates, which are used for everything from > > copyright attribution to inter-page tables of contents. Given that the > > output of any MW artifact is displayable HTML, it is /possible/ to > convert > > to a CW page that looks exactly like the MW page. However, offering the > > functionality of being able to add a line to a TOC template, and have > > everything else happen automatically ... that's hard. (Please note that > > 'possible' != 'reasonable'.) > > > > Then there are smaller things, like sortable tables (on all columns, > too!). > > In MW, that's 'class = "prettytable"' -> 'class = "prettytable > sortable"'; > > just add the one word. <snide> Can CW do it at all? </snide> > > > > The <math> ... </math> feature is of some use in explaining the more > > abstruse Calc functions (in FAQ pages). The major user is the Math > Guide's > > wiki version. (I maintain that document.) Not really an essential > element, > > but nice. > > > > I have little doubt that a serious conversion survey will turn up a > number > > of such problems. > > > > *Migration problems.* > > There are some technical problems with the migration (that is, running MW > at > > Apache); most of those appear to have short- and long-term solutions. I > will > > save the details for a more technical thread, and/or the wiki. > > -- > > /tj/ > > > > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MzK "There's something about the sound of a train that's very romantic and nostalgic and hopeful." -- Paul Simon
