incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Richards <mricha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [wiki] Migration - A TerryE Clipping Collection [LONG]
Date Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:29:32 GMT
Yeah, I've kinda ran into a similar problems when I originally volunteered
to help. I don't know how to go about it, without access to various data
dumps and such that it appears only Contributors/PPMC members have access
to.

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Pedro F. Giffuni <giffunip@tutopia.com>wrote:

> --- On Thu, 9/8/11, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> ...
> > I see you closed INFRA-3917.
> >
>
> I like to clean my own mess, yes.
>
> > Keep in mind that there appear to be others willing to
> > struggle with Confluence migration (CWiki?).
> >
>
> That makes me very happy!
>
> Anyone can reopen the issue: the problem I see is that
> it's basically only infra@ that can do this conversion:
> I have no idea if/how someone else can mirror the original
> information and assuming we can get a dump (which will
> likely be big) after running the conversion it has to
> be uploaded in the CWiki server for review.
>
> > A problem to consider in contingency planning: What it
> > means to lock down the current wiki during conversion.
> > And is the MW kept running for read-only viewing while
> > conversion takes place, either bit by bit or
> > wholesale?   Parallel live operation does not
> > appear practical.
> >
>
> It depends: if the conversion script is fast and we are
> not really editing our MW VM, I wouldn't worry about
> locking, specially just for a test conversion. If
> we see the test conversion could produce some
> workable result we could use a snapshot.
>
> I agree it will be tough but if we could rescue say
> 60% of the information, it would certainly be worth it.
>
> > I think Confluence migration remains as a
> > potentially-necessary Plan B or a potential following Plan A
> > if needed for the long run.  The analysis TerryE
> > provided suggests that it won't be easy whenever it is
> > done.  I'm thinking it should not be done first if MW
> > can be operated in the short term.
> >
>
> I agree, there's just not anything I can personally do
> about it and this being about *doing* and not just
> proposing I felt it was a matter of honesty to close
> the issue :(.
>
> Pedro.
>



-- 
--Matt

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message