[cdwg] New Wiki for OpenSFS

[Shipman, Galen M.]

Could we use a hosted confluence service and perhaps offer other services to our participants for their development projects as well, such as Jira and Greenhopper?

Many companies offer these as hosted services.



-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher J. Morrone [morrone2 at llnl.gov<mailto:morrone2 at llnl.gov>]
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 05:05 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: cdwg at lists.opensfs.org
Subject: Re: [cdwg] New Wiki for OpenSFS


My main concern is that we would need to go from using the
shared-hosting solution that DreamHost offers to a more self-managed
virtual private server (or host the server somewhere else).  That means
more of someone's time spent playing sysadmin for OpenSFS.

I am not opposed to Confluence.  But MediaWiki better matches the level
of effort I'm currently willing to devote to the Wiki.

The again, MediaWiki could become a moot point (or at least its ease of
administration argument) if it turns out that DreamHost's "One Click"
control panel doesn't give us the options we need.

Chris

On 11/02/2012 06:14 PM, Justin Miller wrote:
> Confluence wiki is definitely worth considering.
>
> http://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/overview/team-collaboration-software
>
> Atlassian provides licenses to their stable of products for open source
> projects, I'd wager OpenSFS would qualify for that.
>
> http://www.atlassian.com/software/views/open-source-license-request
>
> - Justin
>
> On 11/2/12 1:52 PM, Christopher J. Morrone wrote:
>> Ok.  I too would be in favor of a switch to MediaWiki.  We had it set up
>> before, and in fact wiki.opensfs.org still goes to an un-configured
>> MediaWiki instance.
>>
>> I am inclined to pursue getting the MediaWiki instance upgraded and
>> configured the way we want.
>>
>> The only complaint that I am aware of for MediaWiki is that folks were
>> unable to upload files.  But of course MediaWiki DOES support that, it
>> is just (according to the FAQ) disabled by default.  So I'll look into
>> where it is hosted, what controls we have, who current has the
>> passwords, etc.
>>
>> If anyone has any other requirements or suggestions for a better wiki
>> engine, please speak up promptly.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> On 11/02/2012 07:23 AM, Nathan Rutman wrote:
>>>
>>> On Nov 1, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Christopher J. Morrone
>>> <morrone2 at llnl.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Could you please elaborate?  Our you referring to content on the
>>>> wiki, or the actual wiki software?
>>>>
>>>> If it is the latter, what are the problems?  You guys at Xyratex are
>>>> pretty much the only people that I know of using the foswiki thing
>>>> that was set up.  Are you having problems with it?  What are the
>>>> problems?
>>> The actual wiki software.  The half-gui interface, the unusual
>>> formatting delimiters.  No permissions to do anything. The
>>> difficulties adding content are a barrier to improving this.
>>> MediaWiki just seems easier.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/01/2012 10:06 AM, Nathan Rutman wrote:
>>>>> My 2 cents: all I really care about is a working Wiki ASAP...
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cdwg mailing list
>>>> cdwg at lists.opensfs.org
>>>> http://lists.opensfs.org/listinfo.cgi/cdwg-opensfs.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cdwg mailing list
>> cdwg at lists.opensfs.org
>> http://lists.opensfs.org/listinfo.cgi/cdwg-opensfs.org
> _______________________________________________
> cdwg mailing list
> cdwg at lists.opensfs.org
> http://lists.opensfs.org/listinfo.cgi/cdwg-opensfs.org
> .
>

_______________________________________________
cdwg mailing list
cdwg at lists.opensfs.org
http://lists.opensfs.org/listinfo.cgi/cdwg-opensfs.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensfs.org/pipermail/cdwg-opensfs.org/attachments/20121107/b42e057e/attachment-0002.htm>