openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Pedro F. Giffuni" <giffu...@tutopia.com>
Subject Re: Request for comments: Community Wiki Services web page.
Date Mon, 08 Aug 2011 16:18:23 GMT
Hi Terry;
Of course I do find your worries very reasonable, and I don't see an imminentreason to change
MySQL or the way things were done but updates areunavoidable and migrations are usually a
good opportunity to do some of them.
Some things to take into account:
- The MW update is mostly unavoidable because version 15.x is unsupportedupstream. Debian
still carries MW 1.15.5, hopefully we can update at least tothat version now, and hopefully
to version 1.17 in some months.
-We may want to move part of the MediaWiki content to confluence in thefuture (yeah, the Atlassian
conversion tool) and for this and for the MWupdate we should try to make sure that we are
not using non standardextensions or to submit them upstream if they are useful for someoneelse.
Pedro.

--- On Mon, 8/8/11, Terry Ellison <Terry@ellisons.org.uk> wrote:



  

    
  
  
    On 08/08/11 02:23, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
    
      +1 to move to PostgreSQL.

It's more work but it's also more portable than the other
option that I would have suggested: ZFS.

    
    Picking up Wolf and Pedro's point.  We used to use PostgreSQL to run
    the forums and I found it an excellent product.  (We migrated to
    MySQL after Sun bought the company and wanted a MySQL logo on every
    page footer, so made this "request".  How times have changed.)

    

    There are two factors against an early move to PostgreSQL:  (i) The
    MediaWiki cavaets on its use (here
    and as all experienced Wikipedian's do look at the associated talk
    page here;
    this has a couple of interesting references which cookbook the
    conversion).  (ii) The extra work involved. This is not only the D/B
    migration, but also a MW version upgrade 15.1 -> 17.  

    

    To be honest I am uncomfortable doing this as part of this immediate
    "continuity of service" migration.  My suggestion is that if the
    wiki looks as if it is going to have a long term place within  the
    project then we should revisit this as part of an in-service
    improvement program in, say, 6-12 months.

    

    //Terry

  


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