You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> on 2011/09/07 00:12:03 UTC
[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 <dr...@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?
Posted by TJ Frazier <tj...@cfl.rr.com>.
Hi, Kay,
On 9/26/2011 18:28, Kay Schenk wrote:
> 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 ???
>
AFAIK, there is nothing going on with the wiki. My objections to Cwiki
are posted below; briefly, conversion would be too big and too messy to
cope with.
Moin-moin might be a better candidate. Like Confluence, moin-moin is
supported by infra (good), and lacks some facilities of Mwiki (bad).
However, it has two distinct advantages:
* It is FOSS. If we decide that we need to extend it, whether for
conversion or for permanent enhancements, we can do that.
* It is Python-powered. Python expertise should be available. I think I
could learn enough to be useful, very quickly, without becoming a
potential single-point-of-failure personnel problem.
I'm not the kind of person who can drive a project. We need someone who
is. --/tj/
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:27 AM, Rob Weir<ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 8:20 AM, TJ Frazier<tj...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/15/2011 15:30, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:11 PM, TJ Frazier<tj...@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 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 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
>>>>
>>> <snip>
>>> Long-term sustainability is definitely a problem. Fortunately, it is a
>>> long-term problem: we have time to find a solution. For instance, maybe
>>> someone(s) at MWF would be pleased to take an active role at ASF. (Or,
>> maybe
>>> not.) We could ask.
>>>
>>> Personally, I am only one of the "start learning" folks. I don't want to
>> be
>>> in a single-point-of-failure position; I am pushing 70, and 70 is pushing
>>> back.
>>>
>>> Should conversion ultimately be required, it is worth taking a look at
>>> moin-moin. That /is/ supported by Infra, and it is FOSS. If we really
>> need
>>> some feature, we can add it; python expertise should be widely available.
>>> --
>>> /tj/
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
Posted by "Pedro F. Giffuni" <gi...@tutopia.com>.
Hi;
--- On Mon, 9/26/11, Kay Schenk <ka...@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?
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
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 <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 8:20 AM, TJ Frazier <tj...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > On 9/15/2011 15:30, Rob Weir wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:11 PM, TJ Frazier<tj...@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 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 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
> >>
> > <snip>
> > Long-term sustainability is definitely a problem. Fortunately, it is a
> > long-term problem: we have time to find a solution. For instance, maybe
> > someone(s) at MWF would be pleased to take an active role at ASF. (Or,
> maybe
> > not.) We could ask.
> >
> > Personally, I am only one of the "start learning" folks. I don't want to
> be
> > in a single-point-of-failure position; I am pushing 70, and 70 is pushing
> > back.
> >
> > Should conversion ultimately be required, it is worth taking a look at
> > moin-moin. That /is/ supported by Infra, and it is FOSS. If we really
> need
> > some feature, we can add it; python expertise should be widely available.
> > --
> > /tj/
> >
> >
>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"There is no such thing as coincidence."
-- Leroy Jethro Gibbs, Rule #39
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 8:20 AM, TJ Frazier <tj...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> On 9/15/2011 15:30, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:11 PM, TJ Frazier<tj...@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 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 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
>>
> <snip>
> Long-term sustainability is definitely a problem. Fortunately, it is a
> long-term problem: we have time to find a solution. For instance, maybe
> someone(s) at MWF would be pleased to take an active role at ASF. (Or, maybe
> not.) We could ask.
>
> Personally, I am only one of the "start learning" folks. I don't want to be
> in a single-point-of-failure position; I am pushing 70, and 70 is pushing
> back.
>
> Should conversion ultimately be required, it is worth taking a look at
> moin-moin. That /is/ supported by Infra, and it is FOSS. If we really need
> some feature, we can add it; python expertise should be widely available.
> --
> /tj/
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
Posted by TJ Frazier <tj...@cfl.rr.com>.
On 9/15/2011 15:30, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:11 PM, TJ Frazier<tj...@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 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
>
<snip>
Long-term sustainability is definitely a problem. Fortunately, it is a
long-term problem: we have time to find a solution. For instance, maybe
someone(s) at MWF would be pleased to take an active role at ASF. (Or,
maybe not.) We could ask.
Personally, I am only one of the "start learning" folks. I don't want to
be in a single-point-of-failure position; I am pushing 70, and 70 is
pushing back.
Should conversion ultimately be required, it is worth taking a look at
moin-moin. That /is/ supported by Infra, and it is FOSS. If we really
need some feature, we can add it; python expertise should be widely
available.
--
/tj/
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:11 PM, TJ Frazier <tj...@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, drew<dr...@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
>
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
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:11 PM, TJ Frazier <tj...@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, drew<dr...@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 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 WikiAgain?
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <gi...@tutopia.com>.
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 <tj...@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?
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
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, drew<dr...@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?
Posted by TJ Frazier <tj...@cfl.rr.com>.
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<dr...@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?
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> Moving this point to its own thread
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:03 PM, drew <dr...@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?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:33 AM, TJ Frazier <tj...@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?
Posted by TJ Frazier <tj...@cfl.rr.com>.
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?
Posted by TJ Frazier <tj...@cfl.rr.com>.
On 9/27/2011 17:03, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 1:50 PM, TJ Frazier<tj...@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 Dictionaries 2701594
>> 2 Documentation/FAQ 1318167
>> 3 OpenOffice.org Solutions 1236521
>> 4 Documentation/BASIC Guide 659632
>> 5 Documentation/DevGuide/OpenOffice.org Developers Guide 608983
>> 6 Database 600448
>> 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?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 1:50 PM, TJ Frazier <tj...@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 Dictionaries 2701594
> 2 Documentation/FAQ 1318167
> 3 OpenOffice.org Solutions 1236521
> 4 Documentation/BASIC Guide 659632
> 5 Documentation/DevGuide/OpenOffice.org Developers Guide 608983
> 6 Database 600448
> 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
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. They would work well as markdown pages. 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?
Posted by TJ Frazier <tj...@cfl.rr.com>.
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 Dictionaries 2701594
2 Documentation/FAQ 1318167
3 OpenOffice.org Solutions 1236521
4 Documentation/BASIC Guide 659632
5 Documentation/DevGuide/OpenOffice.org Developers Guide 608983
6 Database 600448
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?
Posted by TJ Frazier <tj...@cfl.rr.com>.
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?
Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Pedro F. Giffuni <giffunip@tutopia.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > --- On Tue, 9/27/11, Kay Schenk <ka...@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?
Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Pedro F. Giffuni <giffunip@tutopia.com
> >wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- On Tue, 9/27/11, Kay Schenk <ka...@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?
Posted by Raphael Bircher <r....@gmx.ch>.
Am 27.09.11 23:41, schrieb Kay Schenk:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Pedro F. Giffuni<gi...@tutopia.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> --- On Tue, 9/27/11, Kay Schenk<ka...@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?
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Pedro F. Giffuni <gi...@tutopia.com>wrote:
>
>
> --- On Tue, 9/27/11, Kay Schenk <ka...@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?
Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 1:05 PM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 10:39 -0700, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
> >
> > --- On Tue, 9/27/11, Kay Schenk <ka...@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?
Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.
On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 10:39 -0700, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
>
> --- On Tue, 9/27/11, Kay Schenk <ka...@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?
Posted by "Pedro F. Giffuni" <gi...@tutopia.com>.
--- On Tue, 9/27/11, Kay Schenk <ka...@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?
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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...
> >
>
> 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.
> 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?
>
> or
>
> 2) Is there someway we can tag the pages with a category or something,
> to indicate which are the critical pages we must preserve? Maybe this
> could be semi-automated with a browser bookmarklet so that volunteers
> with a wiki account can add that category with a single click.
>
> If there are reasonable number (say less than 500) critical pages,
> then that is something that is doable with a rough and dirty dump and
> manual fix up.
>
> We did something similar to the ODF Toolkit podling recently. It was
> previously hosted on Kenai and used MediaWiki. I did a copy of the
> wikimark up of the pages -- a manual copy and paste operation -- and
> created new Markdown text files for each one. This was
> semi-automated, with some search and replace operations. Then I
> checked in the mdtext files into SVN, and did the manual clean up via
> the Apache CMS web interface. It did require work on every single
> page, to clean it up. But it was not rocket science. And the result
> is we have our doc now all in markdown format, where we can more
> easily maintain it. And none of us are tied up with maintaining a
> server.
>
This would be QUITE painful for the OOo wiki.
>
> But note that one complication of the OOo wiki is the license on the
> content. With the ODF Toolkit everything was ALv2, so we could freely
> copy that content into the podling's website. With OOo, the pages are
> in various licenses. That will require some care. But from technical
> perspective, if it is possible to migrate content from MWiki to
> Markdowntext, then migrating to CWiki or MointMoin should be even
> easier.
>
OK. I don't know HOW the wiki pages are licensed. I will investigate.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Alexandro Colorado <jza@openoffice.org
> >wrote:
> >
> >> -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 <ka...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Pedro F. Giffuni <
> giffunip@tutopia.com
> >> > >wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hello;
> >> > >
> >> > > --- On Tue, 9/6/11, Dave Fisher <da...@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
> >
>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"There is no such thing as coincidence."
-- Leroy Jethro Gibbs, Rule #39
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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...
>
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?
or
2) Is there someway we can tag the pages with a category or something,
to indicate which are the critical pages we must preserve? Maybe this
could be semi-automated with a browser bookmarklet so that volunteers
with a wiki account can add that category with a single click.
If there are reasonable number (say less than 500) critical pages,
then that is something that is doable with a rough and dirty dump and
manual fix up.
We did something similar to the ODF Toolkit podling recently. It was
previously hosted on Kenai and used MediaWiki. I did a copy of the
wikimark up of the pages -- a manual copy and paste operation -- and
created new Markdown text files for each one. This was
semi-automated, with some search and replace operations. Then I
checked in the mdtext files into SVN, and did the manual clean up via
the Apache CMS web interface. It did require work on every single
page, to clean it up. But it was not rocket science. And the result
is we have our doc now all in markdown format, where we can more
easily maintain it. And none of us are tied up with maintaining a
server.
But note that one complication of the OOo wiki is the license on the
content. With the ODF Toolkit everything was ALv2, so we could freely
copy that content into the podling's website. With OOo, the pages are
in various licenses. That will require some care. But from technical
perspective, if it is possible to migrate content from MWiki to
Markdowntext, then migrating to CWiki or MointMoin should be even
easier.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>wrote:
>
>> -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 <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Pedro F. Giffuni <giffunip@tutopia.com
>> > >wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hello;
>> > >
>> > > --- On Tue, 9/6/11, Dave Fisher <da...@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?
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
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 <jz...@openoffice.org>wrote:
> -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 <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Pedro F. Giffuni <giffunip@tutopia.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Hello;
> > >
> > > --- On Tue, 9/6/11, Dave Fisher <da...@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?
Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>.
-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 <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Pedro F. Giffuni <giffunip@tutopia.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Hello;
> >
> > --- On Tue, 9/6/11, Dave Fisher <da...@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?
Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.
On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 12:50 -0700, Kay Schenk wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Pedro F. Giffuni <gi...@tutopia.com>wrote:
>
> > Hello;
> >
> > --- On Tue, 9/6/11, Dave Fisher <da...@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.
> >
> >
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Pedro F. Giffuni <gi...@tutopia.com>wrote:
> Hello;
>
> --- On Tue, 9/6/11, Dave Fisher <da...@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?
Posted by "Pedro F. Giffuni" <gi...@tutopia.com>.
Hello;
--- On Tue, 9/6/11, Dave Fisher <da...@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.
Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
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 <dr...@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