On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 2:35 AM, janI <j...@apache.org> wrote: > I agree on a lot of the things. > > BUT do not forget that a lot of questions/problems also applies to an > upgrade. > > - User interface will change slightly > - Data loss is not acceptlable but the UTF8 conversion might have a side > effect on some browsers > - The tweaks in the current mwiki, will not automatically be present after > an upgrade. >
Which tweaks? > - we do not know if the extensions will work (in the same way) in the new > version. > Have you done the research or you are just speculating? Which extensions hasn't been updated to the current version? any similar extension? > - there are no "the wiki", there are and will always be different systems > out there. > For the most part mediawiki is the most popular wiki out there and it's markup the more widely spread among floss projects that I know off. > > The argument about the text is very valid, but I think that the new version > also offers new facilities, and hope that all old facilities are unchanged > (but there are no quarantees). > > My intention was simply to make the community aware of the possibility. > Because at this point in time I see the upgrade as also being quite a > hurdle. > > Jan I. > > On 3 December 2012 06:49, C <smau...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:35 PM, janI <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > > JSPwiki just announced a new version: > > > > > > http://incubator.apache.org/jspwiki/ > > > > > > since it is a apache project, should we consider upgrading to jspwiki > > > instead of continuing with mediawiki ? > > > > > > The upgrade will almost for sure be harder, but to me it seems > beneficial > > > to use products from our own "family", that way we help them and they > > > hopefully help us. I am also confident that it can be done without data > > > loss, which is an absolute no-go to me, we will not accept data loss. > > > > > > If it is decided to go down this path, I will contact jspWiki and get > > > involved with their work so we have a real influence on how the wiki > > > software evolves (especially in regard of spam control). > > > > While certainly possible to convert from one wiki syntax to another, > > it's no small feat... and that's if the source wiki uses only standard > > syntax for the source Wiki. > > > > The current MediWiki implementation has a significant number of pages > > that rely on extensions for their content. To have a successful > > conversion, you are looking at needing to rewrite thousands of Wiki > > pages. Not necessarily to have 1:1 conversion, but simply to ensure > > that the information is still presented in a logical manner (I'm > > thinking of the documentation pages for example). > > > > Before anyone should really consider this, you need to gather up a > > sizable collection of dedicated volunteers who are willing to sift > > through every wiki page and validate the content, fix the broken > > content, correct conversion errors, and reconnect the information > > flow. > > > > You also will need to account for custom written extensions and the > > functionality (although simple) they provide. > > > > It's a very big job to convert even a small number of pages.... > > > > Clayton > > > -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor http://es.openoffice.org
