incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamil...@acm.org>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS][wiki] Migration (was Re: Who Wants to build OpenOffice?)
Date Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:58:08 GMT
Terry had prepared an analysis of what is involved here somewhere.  It was a pretty long e-mail
with decision points and also previous e-mails on what was required.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Pedro F. Giffuni [mailto:giffunip@tutopia.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 11:36
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][wiki] Migration (was Re: Who Wants to build OpenOffice?)

Hello;

I have not been to involved with that process lately but
my understanding is:

- Infra requires a update to recent version of the
MediaWiki software.
- It would be preferable to have no hacks or no
non-standard extensions.
- They want to have documentation concerning the
maintenance of the system.  

Additionally they would prefer to use a FreeBSD jail,
but this is not mandatory. I was considering stepping
in for this last issue but I have no MediaWiki expertise
and having me as another guy learning is probably not
helpful at this time.

Pedro.

--- On Tue, 9/6/11, Matt Richards <mrichards@gmail.com> 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.
> 
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Sep 6, 2011, at 10:02 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> wrote:
> >
> > > My understanding that it really is a test build
> and it has *not* been
> > maintained in synchronization with the OpenOffice.org
> operating version.  So
> > if that system started to be used as a production
> instance separate from
> > OpenOffice.org, it would be a fork and there would be
> some issues with that.
> >
> > The plan was to put the existing wiki into read only
> and then do a final
> > export. That export would be used to build the final
> ooo-wiki. The next step
> > is to change the DNS. Once DNS is complete branding
> changes will be made.
> >
> > >
> > > Also, I don't believe that would be an acceptable
> arrangement for Apache
> > Infrastructure, for important operational
> reasons.  Someone from there can
> > explain the rules for having a MediaWiki server being
> sustained.
> >
> > Terry has said he will finish the work. It is possible
> that Drew can do it.
> > I know that Terry was documenting everything for
> Infrastructure.
> >
> > Perhaps you should ask infra what they will require
> given the events of the
> > last days.
> >
> > I also wonder what moderation and administrative
> situation exists on the
> > Wiki and if there is any overlap beyond Terry and Drew
> between these two
> > groups.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dave
> >
> > PS. A lot of us are older, let's have some
> consideration for other's health
> > and stress levels.
> >
> I totally understand real life/health needs to come before
> any of these
> types of projects. No problem.
> 
> 
> >
> > >
> > > - Dennis
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Matt Richards [mailto:mrichards@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 08:32
> > > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][wiki] Migration (was Re:
> Who Wants to build
> > OpenOffice?)
> > >
> > > As far as point 2, I thought Terry had completed
> the all of the migration
> > > work and all that was left was to create a final
> export and cut over the
> > DNS
> > > entries? In my mind, if there is already a lot of
> content on the MW and
> > the
> > > Apache Foundation allows us to continue to use
> it, why not?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:19 AM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Pedro F.
> Giffuni <giffunip@tutopia.com
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>> Hmm ...
> > >>> It looks like  I missed where the
> decision to use MediiaWiki and
> > >> deprecate confluence
> > >>> was taken. I guess it was arranged with
> infra as long as MW is up to
> > date
> > >> and
> > >>> the extensions are documented.
> > >>>
> > >>> I am not complaining though: it sounds
> like lazy consensus in action
> > plus
> > >> we can
> > >>> always change mind later on and try the
> conversion script.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Do you have a
> counter-argument?   I think the factors are
> at play were:
> > >>
> > >> 1) We have a huge amount of content already
> in MediaWiki from the
> > >> legacy project. Although it might be
> converted to Confluence, the
> > >> effort would be large.
> > >>
> > >> on the other hand
> > >>
> > >> 2) MediaWiki was not supported by Apache
> Infrastructure and getting it
> > >> supported and migrated would require a lot of
> admin work
> > >>
> > >> So far, it looks like the admin effort has
> made more progress than the
> > >> translation effort.   Maybe
> not a final decision, but that is how it
> > >> looks to me today.
> > >>
> > >> -Rob
> > >>
> > >>> Pedro.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > --Matt
> > >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> --Matt
> 


Mime
View raw message