it's all in the title : what's next for wiki.centos.org ? As a reminder, current wiki.centos.org instance is powered by moinmoin (https://moinmo.in/) but quite an old version (moin-1.5.8-3.el6.noarch) Recently I had a quick look at trying to update/upgrade that version to something newer/supported, but it's a nightmare : the data conversion just kill the target server (oom) and no way to know why. When trying to get help from moin people in their irc server, I was answered that such old version wasn't supported, and that those upgrade scripts themselves aren't supported either, so nobody would help finding why they'd be buggy without having access to the full data. Of course exposing the whole wiki instance (including user/pass) isn't an option, so except if somebody has really a clue about what can go wrong with the update script from 1.5 to 1.6 (and then it has to be done for each major.minor upgrade, so all that in a chained operation), the migration will be impossible. That's why I'd like to discuss a possibility to move wiki to something else, and that's even why we should discuss the need for a wiki itself. If we want to continue to have community written/maintained content, should be still use a wiki or something else ? Moin was selected ~10y ago for its simplicity and online editing, but in 2017, most people (dev and ops) are probably using other workflows, like git/pull-requests/etc. So what about exploring other possibilities ? I don't have a real proposal (even if mkdocs.org , simple solution with Markdown, combined with git would be perfect for me) but just wanted to start a dedicated thread so that we can think about the future of wiki.centos.org Opinions ? Proposals ? anything else ? Fee free to comment :-) -- Fabian Arrotin The CentOS Project | https://www.centos.org gpg key: 56BEC54E | twitter: @arrfab -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20171211/bb20bb6d/attachment.sig>
Hello Fabien, First, thank you for even trying for what seems to be an impossible task :( Quick points : - if it was decided not to continue, what would happen to the current wiki ? Dismantled or would it remain as read-only for documentation purpose ? - What about Sphinx <http://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/stable/> ? seems to be frequentely used nowadays - As you mentioned, a solution of the type of github with pull requests for documentation updates might be a solution here. There is a wiki feature <https://guides.github.com/features/wikis/> on Github. I don't know to which extend it would fit the needs of the project. Hope this helps, Thibaut On 11 December 2017 at 10:00, Fabian Arrotin <arrfab at centos.org> wrote:> it's all in the title : what's next for wiki.centos.org ? > > As a reminder, current wiki.centos.org instance is powered by moinmoin > (https://moinmo.in/) but quite an old version (moin-1.5.8-3.el6.noarch) > > Recently I had a quick look at trying to update/upgrade that version to > something newer/supported, but it's a nightmare : the data conversion > just kill the target server (oom) and no way to know why. When trying to > get help from moin people in their irc server, I was answered that such > old version wasn't supported, and that those upgrade scripts themselves > aren't supported either, so nobody would help finding why they'd be > buggy without having access to the full data. > > Of course exposing the whole wiki instance (including user/pass) isn't > an option, so except if somebody has really a clue about what can go > wrong with the update script from 1.5 to 1.6 (and then it has to be done > for each major.minor upgrade, so all that in a chained operation), the > migration will be impossible. > > That's why I'd like to discuss a possibility to move wiki to something > else, and that's even why we should discuss the need for a wiki itself. > > If we want to continue to have community written/maintained content, > should be still use a wiki or something else ? Moin was selected ~10y > ago for its simplicity and online editing, but in 2017, most people (dev > and ops) are probably using other workflows, like git/pull-requests/etc. > > So what about exploring other possibilities ? > > I don't have a real proposal (even if mkdocs.org , simple solution with > Markdown, combined with git would be perfect for me) but just wanted to > start a dedicated thread so that we can think about the future of > wiki.centos.org > > Opinions ? Proposals ? anything else ? Fee free to comment :-) > > > -- > Fabian Arrotin > The CentOS Project | https://www.centos.org > gpg key: 56BEC54E | twitter: @arrfab > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-docs mailing list > CentOS-docs at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20171211/641b3735/attachment.html>
On 11/12/17 10:22, Thibaut Perrin wrote:> Hello Fabien, > > First, thank you for even trying for what seems to be an impossible task :( > > Quick points :? > - if it was decided not to continue, what would happen to the current > wiki ? Dismantled or would it remain as read-only for documentation > purpose ? > - What about Sphinx <http://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/stable/> ? seems to be > frequentely used nowadays > - As you mentioned, a solution of the type of github with pull requests > for documentation updates might be a solution here.? > > There is a wiki feature <https://guides.github.com/features/wikis/> on > Github. I don't know to which extend it would fit the needs of the project. > > Hope this helps, > > ThibautSo far there is no decision, reason why I started this thread :) I guess our target would be to convert (and sanitize ?) existing content anyway as we don't want to lose such content. Then either replacing wiki.centos.org with new solution (but trying to keep the same structure so that all the things in cache for search engines and/or articles pointing to wiki can still work) or move to something different and indeed keeping existing wiki.centos.org in Read-Only mode I'd like to avoid Github specifically but having something else that would permit to use ACO (https://acccounts.centos.org) as auth source. I already played with gitea and it works with openid so self-hosted git instance using ACO works fine. (but that's a different thread) We should divide all parts into specific areas. Benefits of using .md means being able to switch to something else even later and not be tied to $yet_another_tool to generate the web part. (just my idea) -- Fabian Arrotin The CentOS Project | https://www.centos.org gpg key: 56BEC54E | twitter: @arrfab -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20171211/db973eb7/attachment-0002.sig>
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Fabian Arrotin <arrfab at centos.org> wrote:> it's all in the title : what's next for wiki.centos.org ? > > As a reminder, current wiki.centos.org instance is powered by moinmoin > (https://moinmo.in/) but quite an old version (moin-1.5.8-3.el6.noarch) > > Recently I had a quick look at trying to update/upgrade that version to > something newer/supported, but it's a nightmare : the data conversion > just kill the target server (oom) and no way to know why. When trying to > get help from moin people in their irc server, I was answered that such > old version wasn't supported, and that those upgrade scripts themselves > aren't supported either, so nobody would help finding why they'd be > buggy without having access to the full data. > > Of course exposing the whole wiki instance (including user/pass) isn't > an option, so except if somebody has really a clue about what can go > wrong with the update script from 1.5 to 1.6 (and then it has to be done > for each major.minor upgrade, so all that in a chained operation), the > migration will be impossible. > > That's why I'd like to discuss a possibility to move wiki to something > else, and that's even why we should discuss the need for a wiki itself. > > If we want to continue to have community written/maintained content, > should be still use a wiki or something else ? Moin was selected ~10y > ago for its simplicity and online editing, but in 2017, most people (dev > and ops) are probably using other workflows, like git/pull-requests/etc. > > So what about exploring other possibilities ? > > I don't have a real proposal (even if mkdocs.org , simple solution with > Markdown, combined with git would be perfect for me) but just wanted to > start a dedicated thread so that we can think about the future of > wiki.centos.org > > Opinions ? Proposals ? anything else ? Fee free to comment :-)?I personally would like to see an update to the current wiki?. However if this is not plausible, maybe an alternative like mediawiki can be considered? One note I want to make is that use of git may not be suitable/best for docs and certainly will be frowned upon by some notable contributors to the current wiki. Akemi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20171212/97fce496/attachment-0002.html>
On 12/12/17 17:25, Akemi Yagi wrote:> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Fabian Arrotin <arrfab at centos.org > <mailto:arrfab at centos.org>> wrote: > > it's all in the title : what's next for wiki.centos.org > <http://wiki.centos.org> ? > > As a reminder, current wiki.centos.org <http://wiki.centos.org> > instance is powered by moinmoin > (https://moinmo.in/) but quite an old version (moin-1.5.8-3.el6.noarch) > > Recently I had a quick look at trying to update/upgrade that version to > something newer/supported, but it's a nightmare : the data conversion > just kill the target server (oom) and no way to know why. When trying to > get help from moin people in their irc server, I was answered that such > old version wasn't supported, and that those upgrade scripts themselves > aren't supported either, so nobody would help finding why they'd be > buggy without having access to the full data. > > Of course exposing the whole wiki instance (including user/pass) isn't > an option, so except if somebody has really a clue about what can go > wrong with the update script from 1.5 to 1.6 (and then it has to be done > for each major.minor upgrade, so all that in a chained operation), the > migration will be impossible. > > That's why I'd like to discuss a possibility to move wiki to something > else, and that's even why we should discuss the need for a wiki itself. > > If we want to continue to have community written/maintained content, > should be still use a wiki or something else ? Moin was selected ~10y > ago for its simplicity and online editing, but in 2017, most people (dev > and ops) are probably using other workflows, like git/pull-requests/etc. > > So what about exploring other possibilities ? > > I don't have a real proposal (even if mkdocs.org <http://mkdocs.org> > , simple solution with > Markdown, combined with git would be perfect for me) but just wanted to > start a dedicated thread so that we can think about the future of > wiki.centos.org <http://wiki.centos.org> > > Opinions ? Proposals ? anything else ? Fee free to comment :-) > > > ?I personally would like to see an update to the current wiki?. However > if this is not plausible, maybe an alternative like mediawiki can be > considered? > > One note I want to make is that use of git may not be suitable/best for > docs and certainly will be frowned upon by some notable contributors to > the current wiki. > > Akemi >*ack* So maybe we should try to reach out the moinmoin people to see if they'd like to see us continuing using moin or switch to something else. Mediawiki can be investigated, as that's also Fedora switched to in the past. So we already know that : - openid auth works (against FAS, so that will work with ACO) - they probably had some migration scripts somewhere that we can test if needed) -- Fabian Arrotin The CentOS Project | https://www.centos.org gpg key: 56BEC54E | twitter: @arrfab -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20171212/c880b916/attachment-0002.sig>