Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
On 9/27/2011 20:37, TJ Frazier wrote: On 9/27/2011 17:03, Rob Weir wrote: snip I'm assuming this is the link: http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/wiki/Wiki/statistics That should be a good assumption, but no. It's busted. I'll fix it. Meanwhile, you can see it on the main page of the live wiki: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Page The problem is complex. Give me a day or so. OK, try the statistics link. Now showing top 100. Page is still messy because of difficult working conditions (ATS problem). Do we have any sense of what % of page visits are comprised by the top pages? The above numbers look impressive, but I have no idea if the top 10 pages account for 20% of the hits, or 1%. AFAIK, the wiki is keeping a hit count per page. Someone with SQL karma and fu could total the field. It's a big number: the 100th page has 10E5+ hits. I can crunch the numbers if there is some way to derive them. I could even crunch the http logs directly, if they are saved for a couple of days. In any case, the top pages you've reported are not typical community pages. True. They would work well as markdown pages. Only if we ignore the valuable feedback from user changes on the manuals. I find this a significant quality enhancer. Except maybe the FAQ's we want to be more dynamic and wiki-enabled. Might even be something the Forum volunteers would be interested in maintaining directly, since they would have the best sense of what questions are frequent. I suggest that a lot more info belongs on a wiki, rather than elsewhere. Please see my upcoming reply to a commit by Dave Fisher, on a web page. I think this is encouraging. -Rob -- /tj/
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:33 AM, TJ Frazier tjfraz...@cfl.rr.com wrote: On 9/27/2011 20:37, TJ Frazier wrote: On 9/27/2011 17:03, Rob Weir wrote: snip I'm assuming this is the link: http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/wiki/Wiki/statistics That should be a good assumption, but no. It's busted. I'll fix it. Meanwhile, you can see it on the main page of the live wiki: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Page The problem is complex. Give me a day or so. OK, try the statistics link. Now showing top 100. Page is still messy because of difficult working conditions (ATS problem). Thanks. Just looking through the top pages, I'm not seeing very complex pages. I know there are highly customized parts, that might not convert easily to moin moin or CWiki. But I don't see it in the top pages. Or am I missing something? Do we have any sense of what % of page visits are comprised by the top pages? The above numbers look impressive, but I have no idea if the top 10 pages account for 20% of the hits, or 1%. AFAIK, the wiki is keeping a hit count per page. Someone with SQL karma and fu could total the field. It's a big number: the 100th page has 10E5+ hits. It is hard to interpret the absolute number without knowing the time scale we're measuring. 10,000 hits in 5 years is not so impressive. In one day, it is. In any case, we have some very popular pages. But it drops rather quickly. After 25 pages we're down a factor of 10. This is as you would expect. The interesting thing (and something that is hard to look at in detail without web analytics) is how people are getting to these pages, and why. For example, the Dictionaries page is a good compilation of open source dictionaries for ispell/hunspell. As such, it is of interest to several OSS programs. So that page is linked to from: PostgresSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/textsearch-dictionaries.html NetBSD: ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/pkgsrc/current/pkgsrc/textproc/hunspell-lt_LT/README.html TortoiseSVN: https://apps.uillinois.edu/TortoiseSVN-1.6.6-en.pdf Even commercial products like Altova: http://www.altova.com/de/dictionaries/ So we have a page here that is important beyond users of OpenOffice. We should try to preserve both the content and the URL I can crunch the numbers if there is some way to derive them. I could even crunch the http logs directly, if they are saved for a couple of days. In any case, the top pages you've reported are not typical community pages. True. They would work well as markdown pages. Only if we ignore the valuable feedback from user changes on the manuals. I find this a significant quality enhancer. Except maybe the FAQ's we want to be more dynamic and wiki-enabled. Might even be something the Forum volunteers would be interested in maintaining directly, since they would have the best sense of what questions are frequent. I suggest that a lot more info belongs on a wiki, rather than elsewhere. Please see my upcoming reply to a commit by Dave Fisher, on a web page. I think this is encouraging. -Rob -- /tj/
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@openoffice.orgwrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Pedro F. Giffuni giffu...@tutopia.com wrote: --- On Tue, 9/27/11, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: As Rob Weir has put it ... ... So obviously there is limited volunteer bandwidth to migrate the wiki. And I've heard from several people, on and off the list, that much of what is on the wiki is not very useful. uh, well...I don't know bout this. I was under the impression that MUCH of developer info was here. Others would need to weigh in but I think it was widely used because of the ease of use. Just my word of advice: Check the MediaWiki at http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/ If we take out information about Hg (dead), the Development Teams and Projects (which will have to be reorganized), Old News, the issue tracker ... Is the information left worth it to run through a MW--CWiki conversion effort? Yes, the projects need some reorganization, but I doubt if all the development stuff should be removed. It simply hasn't gone anywhere -- yet. The problem is NOT the conversion effort (a one time deal) but the maintenance effort. *IF* someone(s) would step up to be the MW guru, there wouldn't be an issue but we're outside the infra workings. Well then we should look for that guru. So far I havent event seen clearly what things do we actually need. Maybe we need to come to the decision we need to get a MW administrator. Clayton was our administrator, if he want to train the new administrator then we wont need such a guru. AFAIK he left open the option of doing some light mentoring on the administration. I think given the license situation we should just leave that stuff as read-only for now and do all new work on CWiki (or MoinMoin). Well OK, good enough and I would agree with this. After looking at the old wiki this am, it seems someone from the es area has made quite a few changes/additions, and the front page itself had been modified this am. Of course, there was that throw pillows page addition??! and ps. Does anyone here actually know HOW to put the old wiki in read-only??? Usually to do a backup of the wiki, you are supposed to make it read only. Is a configuration line in the .conf file. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Backing_up_a_wiki I paste the wrong link, is actually: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgReadOnly Pedro. -- --- MzK There is no such thing as coincidence. -- Leroy Jethro Gibbs, Rule #39 -- *Alexandro Colorado* *OpenOffice.org* Español http://es.openoffice.org fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6 -- *Alexandro Colorado* *OpenOffice.org* Español http://es.openoffice.org fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
I realized after I posted this that I should have looked at Pedro's request ticket first, so sorry about that. Re--doing it ourselves??? OK, here we go again. It's about current and long-term administration in my mind. Given the stagnant state of this set-up, and again, administration, I truly do not think we can afford to diverge from some well-known and supported path on this. Just look at where we are now -- Terry has left and no one seems to be able to take over what HAS been established at: http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/wiki/Main_Page I will try to spend the rest of this week looking at Pedro's ticket to infra on this and attempt to determine what can be done. Right now, there is STILL activity on the current wiki and no one seems to be minding the store. I'm kinda concerned about this... On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@openoffice.orgwrote: -1 I think there still many things that there need to be done for MW but I also think that users will appreciate having their familiar environment in this wiki. I will vote to keep MW as Plan A. Also will start getting more involved as the BZ. On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com 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. Pedro. -- --- MzK Music expresses that which cannot be said and on which it is impossible to be silent. -- Victor Hugo -- *Alexandro Colorado* *OpenOffice.org* Español http://es.openoffice.org fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6 -- --- MzK There is no such thing as coincidence. -- Leroy Jethro Gibbs, Rule #39
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
On 9/27/2011 12:21, Rob Weir wrote: So obviously there is limited volunteer bandwidth to migrate the wiki. And I've heard from several people, on and off the list, that much of what is on the wiki is not very useful. Is there any way we can prioritize the effort? For example: 1) Is there any way to get page hit stats to see what pages are most accessed? If not already instrumented could we add Google Analytics for a couple of weeks? There was a top-ten dynamic page list on the wiki main page. Clayton removed it last March, on the grounds that it loaded the server too heavily. I will try to reactivate it on the Apache copy, and see if it yields any useful stats. (Please ignore any loud noises from the server room.) IIRC, the Basic Guide topped the list. -- /tj/
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
--- On Tue, 9/27/11, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: As Rob Weir has put it ... ... So obviously there is limited volunteer bandwidth to migrate the wiki. And I've heard from several people, on and off the list, that much of what is on the wiki is not very useful. uh, well...I don't know bout this. I was under the impression that MUCH of developer info was here. Others would need to weigh in but I think it was widely used because of the ease of use. Just my word of advice: Check the MediaWiki at http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/ If we take out information about Hg (dead), the Development Teams and Projects (which will have to be reorganized), Old News, the issue tracker ... Is the information left worth it to run through a MW--CWiki conversion effort? I think given the license situation we should just leave that stuff as read-only for now and do all new work on CWiki (or MoinMoin). Pedro.
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
On 9/27/2011 13:29, TJ Frazier wrote: On 9/27/2011 12:21, Rob Weir wrote: So obviously there is limited volunteer bandwidth to migrate the wiki. And I've heard from several people, on and off the list, that much of what is on the wiki is not very useful. Is there any way we can prioritize the effort? For example: 1) Is there any way to get page hit stats to see what pages are most accessed? If not already instrumented could we add Google Analytics for a couple of weeks? There was a top-ten dynamic page list on the wiki main page. Clayton removed it last March, on the grounds that it loaded the server too heavily. I will try to reactivate it on the Apache copy, and see if it yields any useful stats. (Please ignore any loud noises from the server room.) IIRC, the Basic Guide topped the list. Well, OK, fourth on the list. As scraped off the copy: 1 Dictionaries2701594 2 Documentation/FAQ 1318167 3 OpenOffice.org Solutions1236521 4 Documentation/BASIC Guide 659632 5 Documentation/DevGuide/OpenOffice.org Developers Guide 608983 6 Database600448 7 Documentation 541709 8 Documentation/FAQ/General 493961 9 SV 462049 I left the reporting still live on the Apache copy. The pages are linked there. It's a start to what's critical. If we want a top-100 list, I can probably do that. -- /tj/
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 10:39 -0700, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: --- On Tue, 9/27/11, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: As Rob Weir has put it ... ... So obviously there is limited volunteer bandwidth to migrate the wiki. And I've heard from several people, on and off the list, that much of what is on the wiki is not very useful. uh, well...I don't know bout this. I was under the impression that MUCH of developer info was here. Others would need to weigh in but I think it was widely used because of the ease of use. Just my word of advice: Check the MediaWiki at http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/ If we take out information about Hg (dead), the Development Teams and Projects (which will have to be reorganized), Old News, the issue tracker ... Is the information left worth it to run through a MW--CWiki conversion effort? I think given the license situation we should just leave that stuff as read-only for now and do all new work on CWiki IMo someone needs to find out who user Hohenheim on the current wiki is and get them to stop adding pages, cause it looks like the last couple of hundred new pages all come form that account and all in the last couple of weeks. it may be that if you got that person to move the pages over to cwiki, that the read-only version of MW is up to date with the older version already. @Alexandro - do you know who this is? //drew
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Pedro F. Giffuni giffu...@tutopia.comwrote: --- On Tue, 9/27/11, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: As Rob Weir has put it ... ... So obviously there is limited volunteer bandwidth to migrate the wiki. And I've heard from several people, on and off the list, that much of what is on the wiki is not very useful. uh, well...I don't know bout this. I was under the impression that MUCH of developer info was here. Others would need to weigh in but I think it was widely used because of the ease of use. Just my word of advice: Check the MediaWiki at http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/ If we take out information about Hg (dead), the Development Teams and Projects (which will have to be reorganized), Old News, the issue tracker ... Is the information left worth it to run through a MW--CWiki conversion effort? Yes, the projects need some reorganization, but I doubt if all the development stuff should be removed. It simply hasn't gone anywhere -- yet. The problem is NOT the conversion effort (a one time deal) but the maintenance effort. *IF* someone(s) would step up to be the MW guru, there wouldn't be an issue but we're outside the infra workings. I think given the license situation we should just leave that stuff as read-only for now and do all new work on CWiki (or MoinMoin). Well OK, good enough and I would agree with this. After looking at the old wiki this am, it seems someone from the es area has made quite a few changes/additions, and the front page itself had been modified this am. Of course, there was that throw pillows page addition??! and ps. Does anyone here actually know HOW to put the old wiki in read-only??? Pedro. -- --- MzK There is no such thing as coincidence. -- Leroy Jethro Gibbs, Rule #39
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Pedro F. Giffuni giffu...@tutopia.com wrote: --- On Tue, 9/27/11, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: As Rob Weir has put it ... ... So obviously there is limited volunteer bandwidth to migrate the wiki. And I've heard from several people, on and off the list, that much of what is on the wiki is not very useful. uh, well...I don't know bout this. I was under the impression that MUCH of developer info was here. Others would need to weigh in but I think it was widely used because of the ease of use. Just my word of advice: Check the MediaWiki at http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/ If we take out information about Hg (dead), the Development Teams and Projects (which will have to be reorganized), Old News, the issue tracker ... Is the information left worth it to run through a MW--CWiki conversion effort? Yes, the projects need some reorganization, but I doubt if all the development stuff should be removed. It simply hasn't gone anywhere -- yet. The problem is NOT the conversion effort (a one time deal) but the maintenance effort. *IF* someone(s) would step up to be the MW guru, there wouldn't be an issue but we're outside the infra workings. Well then we should look for that guru. So far I havent event seen clearly what things do we actually need. Maybe we need to come to the decision we need to get a MW administrator. Clayton was our administrator, if he want to train the new administrator then we wont need such a guru. AFAIK he left open the option of doing some light mentoring on the administration. I think given the license situation we should just leave that stuff as read-only for now and do all new work on CWiki (or MoinMoin). Well OK, good enough and I would agree with this. After looking at the old wiki this am, it seems someone from the es area has made quite a few changes/additions, and the front page itself had been modified this am. Of course, there was that throw pillows page addition??! and ps. Does anyone here actually know HOW to put the old wiki in read-only??? Usually to do a backup of the wiki, you are supposed to make it read only. Is a configuration line in the .conf file. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Backing_up_a_wiki Pedro. -- --- MzK There is no such thing as coincidence. -- Leroy Jethro Gibbs, Rule #39 -- *Alexandro Colorado* *OpenOffice.org* Español http://es.openoffice.org fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
Am 27.09.11 23:41, schrieb Kay Schenk: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Pedro F. Giffunigiffu...@tutopia.comwrote: --- On Tue, 9/27/11, Kay Schenkkay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: As Rob Weir has put it ... ... So obviously there is limited volunteer bandwidth to migrate the wiki. And I've heard from several people, on and off the list, that much of what is on the wiki is not very useful. uh, well...I don't know bout this. I was under the impression that MUCH of developer info was here. Others would need to weigh in but I think it was widely used because of the ease of use. Just my word of advice: Check the MediaWiki at http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/ If we take out information about Hg (dead), the Development Teams and Projects (which will have to be reorganized), Old News, the issue tracker ... Is the information left worth it to run through a MW--CWiki conversion effort? Yes, the projects need some reorganization, but I doubt if all the development stuff should be removed. It simply hasn't gone anywhere -- yet. The problem is NOT the conversion effort (a one time deal) but the maintenance effort. *IF* someone(s) would step up to be the MW guru, there wouldn't be an issue but we're outside the infra workings. Well the complicate part of our wiki is not the wiki itself, it's more the extensions. The problem is, that Ifrastructure allows only services with all security fixes. This is no problem for MW itself. MW is realy well maintained. But If you need a Update and you have only one extension who is not well maintained and does not work with the latest version of MW, the trubbles starts. Well, you can deinstall the extension, but then you lose also same functionality. And same of these functionality is the reason why we prefer MW. The mediawiki desicion depends also to the question, What we will doing with the wiki. If we will use it as a coordinations tool, and to hosting internal informations, not dedicated to endusers, then we don't realy need MW. If we want to use it for doc translation etc. Then there are functionality that no other (by apache infra) supports. I think given the license situation we should just leave that stuff as read-only for now and do all new work on CWiki (or MoinMoin). Well OK, good enough and I would agree with this. After looking at the old wiki this am, it seems someone from the es area has made quite a few changes/additions, and the front page itself had been modified this am. Of course, there was that throw pillows page addition??! and ps. Does anyone here actually know HOW to put the old wiki in read-only??? I think, I can do this if needed. Greetings Raphael -- My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
On 9/27/2011 17:03, Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 1:50 PM, TJ Fraziertjfraz...@cfl.rr.com wrote: On 9/27/2011 13:29, TJ Frazier wrote: On 9/27/2011 12:21, Rob Weir wrote: So obviously there is limited volunteer bandwidth to migrate the wiki. And I've heard from several people, on and off the list, that much of what is on the wiki is not very useful. Is there any way we can prioritize the effort? For example: 1) Is there any way to get page hit stats to see what pages are most accessed? If not already instrumented could we add Google Analytics for a couple of weeks? There was a top-ten dynamic page list on the wiki main page. Clayton removed it last March, on the grounds that it loaded the server too heavily. I will try to reactivate it on the Apache copy, and see if it yields any useful stats. (Please ignore any loud noises from the server room.) IIRC, the Basic Guide topped the list. Well, OK, fourth on the list. As scraped off the copy: 1 Dictionaries2701594 2 Documentation/FAQ 1318167 3 OpenOffice.org Solutions1236521 4 Documentation/BASIC Guide 659632 5 Documentation/DevGuide/OpenOffice.org Developers Guide 608983 6 Database600448 7 Documentation 541709 8 Documentation/FAQ/General 493961 9 SV 462049 I left the reporting still live on the Apache copy. The pages are linked there. It's a start to what's critical. If we want a top-100 list, I can probably do that. I'm assuming this is the link: http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/wiki/Wiki/statistics That should be a good assumption, but no. It's busted. I'll fix it. Meanwhile, you can see it on the main page of the live wiki: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Page The problem is complex. Give me a day or so. Do we have any sense of what % of page visits are comprised by the top pages? The above numbers look impressive, but I have no idea if the top 10 pages account for 20% of the hits, or 1%. I can crunch the numbers if there is some way to derive them. I could even crunch the http logs directly, if they are saved for a couple of days. In any case, the top pages you've reported are not typical community pages. True. They would work well as markdown pages. Only if we ignore the valuable feedback from user changes on the manuals. I find this a significant quality enhancer. Except maybe the FAQ's we want to be more dynamic and wiki-enabled. Might even be something the Forum volunteers would be interested in maintaining directly, since they would have the best sense of what questions are frequent. I think this is encouraging. -Rob -- /tj/
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 1:05 PM, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 10:39 -0700, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: --- On Tue, 9/27/11, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: As Rob Weir has put it ... ... So obviously there is limited volunteer bandwidth to migrate the wiki. And I've heard from several people, on and off the list, that much of what is on the wiki is not very useful. uh, well...I don't know bout this. I was under the impression that MUCH of developer info was here. Others would need to weigh in but I think it was widely used because of the ease of use. Just my word of advice: Check the MediaWiki at http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/ If we take out information about Hg (dead), the Development Teams and Projects (which will have to be reorganized), Old News, the issue tracker ... Is the information left worth it to run through a MW--CWiki conversion effort? I think given the license situation we should just leave that stuff as read-only for now and do all new work on CWiki IMo someone needs to find out who user Hohenheim on the current wiki is and get them to stop adding pages, cause it looks like the last couple of hundred new pages all come form that account and all in the last couple of weeks. it may be that if you got that person to move the pages over to cwiki, that the read-only version of MW is up to date with the older version already. @Alexandro - do you know who this is? //drew Yes he is one of our interns, and not only him. I asked about this situation a few weeks ago but there was no reply on this topic. -- *Alexandro Colorado* *OpenOffice.org* Español http://es.openoffice.org fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
Hi. I just posted (really asked a question) on this same subject on another thread -- vis a vis what's going on with the wiki. So, what IS going on? Anybody? I think (thought?) Pedro was kind of coordinating the test of Confluence with the infra folks but ??? On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:27 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 8:20 AM, TJ Frazier tjfraz...@cfl.rr.com wrote: On 9/15/2011 15:30, Rob Weir wrote: On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:11 PM, TJ Fraziertjfraz...@cfl.rr.com wrote: On 9/6/2011 18:12, Rob Weir wrote: 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. But is it reality? Apache has no big lists of credit-card numbers, no treasure-trove of secret diplomatic cables, no maps of nuclear weapons targets or locations. What we do have is software source, and that's free for the asking. In short, we have nothing that's worth a commercial (money-seeking) cracker's time. AFAIK, the ASF takes no stand on political, religious, or other ideological controversies. We should not draw fanatics, either. The one credible threat I see is the possibility of inserting malware into an Apache distro. That should not be possible through the wiki — any brand of wiki. If you look at recent attacks, the trend appears to be to exploit a XSS vulnerability (or other0) to get root access, get the user account data, typically user name, email address and hashed password, then do an offline rainbow table attack on the hashed passwords, and use that information to break into other accounts on other systems, since many users use identical login/password on multiple systems. It isn't really about the content of the wiki per se. It is the account data. (Not to mention that any target on our backs wouldn't even fill the ten-ring of the target on Wikipedia – one of the most popular sites in the world. Their code may not be bullet-proof, but it's close.) 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 *assume* that the issue here is the timely installation of security-related updates, a high-priority maintenance task. Such updates for FOSS components do happen – witness the recent flap over digital certificates – but they are quite rare. With the exception of the MediaWiki code itself, updating the other components should be a cookbook task for anyone with sufficient karma and fu to have
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
Hi; --- On Mon, 9/26/11, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: So, what IS going on? Anybody? I think (thought?) Pedro was kind of coordinating the test of Confluence with the infra folks but ??? Unfortunately not. I asked infra@ and they didn't answer: I understand they expect us to do it. I have rather limited resources right now so I dropped it from my plans. Terry did leave a dump of the data if anyone wants to try but from the information of the plugin it would look like whomever tries must have Confluence with the latex plugin installed. This said, from what I've seen in the MediaWiki, a lot of the information there requires serious updating, a lot simply doesn't apply anymore. Maybe it's not crazy to just copy-paste and reformat the information that is still valid manually. Pedro.
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
-1 I think there still many things that there need to be done for MW but I also think that users will appreciate having their familiar environment in this wiki. I will vote to keep MW as Plan A. Also will start getting more involved as the BZ. On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com 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. Pedro. -- --- MzK Music expresses that which cannot be said and on which it is impossible to be silent. -- Victor Hugo -- *Alexandro Colorado* *OpenOffice.org* Español http://es.openoffice.org fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
On 9/15/2011 15:30, Rob Weir wrote: On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:11 PM, TJ Fraziertjfraz...@cfl.rr.com wrote: On 9/6/2011 18:12, Rob Weir wrote: 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. But is it reality? Apache has no big lists of credit-card numbers, no treasure-trove of secret diplomatic cables, no maps of nuclear weapons targets or locations. What we do have is software source, and that's free for the asking. In short, we have nothing that's worth a commercial (money-seeking) cracker's time. AFAIK, the ASF takes no stand on political, religious, or other ideological controversies. We should not draw fanatics, either. The one credible threat I see is the possibility of inserting malware into an Apache distro. That should not be possible through the wiki — any brand of wiki. (Not to mention that any target on our backs wouldn't even fill the ten-ring of the target on Wikipedia – one of the most popular sites in the world. Their code may not be bullet-proof, but it's close.) 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 *assume* that the issue here is the timely installation of security-related updates, a high-priority maintenance task. Such updates for FOSS components do happen – witness the recent flap over digital certificates – but they are quite rare. With the exception of the MediaWiki code itself, updating the other components should be a cookbook task for anyone with sufficient karma and fu to have root access. It is generally simple enough that even I would take a crack at it (working slowly and carefully, and reading the instructions *first*. And not taking any obvious short-cuts ;-) ). Updating the MW code is a problem, with extensions, local mods, and leading-edge policy to consider. While there is expertise in the background, we have not identified any active contributor (apparently including Infra) with the expertise to JFDI. 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
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 8:20 AM, TJ Frazier tjfraz...@cfl.rr.com wrote: On 9/15/2011 15:30, Rob Weir wrote: On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:11 PM, TJ Fraziertjfraz...@cfl.rr.com wrote: On 9/6/2011 18:12, Rob Weir wrote: 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. But is it reality? Apache has no big lists of credit-card numbers, no treasure-trove of secret diplomatic cables, no maps of nuclear weapons targets or locations. What we do have is software source, and that's free for the asking. In short, we have nothing that's worth a commercial (money-seeking) cracker's time. AFAIK, the ASF takes no stand on political, religious, or other ideological controversies. We should not draw fanatics, either. The one credible threat I see is the possibility of inserting malware into an Apache distro. That should not be possible through the wiki — any brand of wiki. If you look at recent attacks, the trend appears to be to exploit a XSS vulnerability (or other0) to get root access, get the user account data, typically user name, email address and hashed password, then do an offline rainbow table attack on the hashed passwords, and use that information to break into other accounts on other systems, since many users use identical login/password on multiple systems. It isn't really about the content of the wiki per se. It is the account data. (Not to mention that any target on our backs wouldn't even fill the ten-ring of the target on Wikipedia – one of the most popular sites in the world. Their code may not be bullet-proof, but it's close.) 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 *assume* that the issue here is the timely installation of security-related updates, a high-priority maintenance task. Such updates for FOSS components do happen – witness the recent flap over digital certificates – but they are quite rare. With the exception of the MediaWiki code itself, updating the other components should be a cookbook task for anyone with sufficient karma and fu to have root access. It is generally simple enough that even I would take a crack at it (working slowly and carefully, and reading the instructions *first*. And not taking any obvious short-cuts ;-) ). Updating the MW code is a problem, with extensions, local mods, and leading-edge policy to consider. While there is expertise in the background, we have not identified any active contributor (apparently including Infra) with the expertise to
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:11 PM, TJ Frazier tjfraz...@cfl.rr.com 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, drewd...@baseanswers.com 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 *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
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:11 PM, TJ Frazier tjfraz...@cfl.rr.com 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, drewd...@baseanswers.com 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 Sowhat's the status of the basic info port from MW to cwiki right now? Any news? Yeah--the template conversion dos look a bit
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
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, drewd...@baseanswers.com 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. *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/
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
Hi TJ, Have a look at the Re: [wiki] Migration - A TerryE Clipping Collection [LONG] thread. Anyone thinking about playing with CWiki is thinking it is a Plan B. MWiki is still Plan A. For me the CWiki was the only choice until Terry E showed up and did his tremendous work! Since he left some are concerned and a Plan B becomes something they would like to work on. Perhaps they can work on Plan A instead? We need more than Drew! Regards, Dave On Sep 8, 2011, at 3:11 PM, TJ Frazier 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, drewd...@baseanswers.com 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. *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/
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
Hello TJ; Just looking for fun at the conversion tool: https://studio.plugins.atlassian.com/wiki/display/UWC/UWC+Mediawiki+Notes Particularly the featues section: Templates would certainly be trouble. Math macros are supported, but we need to install the Latex plugin in Confluence.(Not installed by default) Cheers, Pedro. On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 18:11:40 -0400, TJ Frazier tjfraz...@cfl.rr.com wrote: On 9/6/2011 18:12, Rob Weir wrote: ... 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. *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.
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Pedro F. Giffuni giffu...@tutopia.comwrote: 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. Pedro. -- --- MzK Music expresses that which cannot be said and on which it is impossible to be silent. -- Victor Hugo
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
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.comwrote: 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.
[DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
Moving this point to its own thread On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:03 PM, drew d...@baseanswers.com 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, You have root level access to the current box in Hamburg? Thanks, 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
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
Pedro has already gone over to check with Infrastructure about doing a test. Erasing other things I started to say. Maybe I'll be more positive tomorrow. I'm rather exhausted by today's emails. Regards, Dave On Sep 6, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Rob Weir wrote: Moving this point to its own thread On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:03 PM, drew d...@baseanswers.com 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, You have root level access to the current box in Hamburg? Thanks, 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
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: Moving this point to its own thread On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:03 PM, drew d...@baseanswers.com 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, You have root level access to the current box in Hamburg? Thanks, 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. Ai yi yi! What does it take to import the MW info? And I guess I mean primarily infrastructure. It looks as if there are utilities for converting htnl to Confluence markup, which is what I was interested in for dealing with the NL sights and perhaps other areas. Hopefully the main wiki users will weigh in on this. Just an idea. -Rob -- --- MzK Music expresses that which cannot be said and on which it is impossible to be silent. -- Victor Hugo
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
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. Pedro.
