incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS][wiki] Migration (was Re: Who Wants to build OpenOffice?)
Date Tue, 06 Sep 2011 17:28:10 GMT
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.

> 
> - 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
> 


Mime
View raw message