Hi, > Who will perform this "final switch"? When will it happen? How much > content will tentatively be involved? How much content will end up > being *duplicated*? the final switch could happen anytime, and should be done when wiki.netbsd.org is considered usable. > And... why force users to go through the learning curve of two wiki > systems with two different syntaxes? > > > * ikiwiki is the wiki that should finally be used on netbsd.org. My > > matter with ikiwiki is only that I absolutely don't know it and cannot > > write perl, and would thus rather take another wiki. > > That's a huge red flag. Proposing an alternative because you "don't > know" (and you are clearly admitting that) is hard to justify and hard > to take seriously. Most likely, you will end up repeating mistakes that > have already been solved in the ikiwiki setup and/or realize later on > that ikiwiki was not "that bad" when it's too late. sorry if I didn't clearly wrote down what all this is about. Every three of the systems has its own merits, with everyone going into a completely different direction. For me, the question is: What is the expected usage, with whose effort, and what and when will be the migration to wiki.netbsd.org? If the wiki ends up with only two or three people writing articles, perhaps the comfort of using fossil and migrating articles per hand would be preferrable. If the wiki ends up being a *large* project with many users, articles, etc., then having them not to switch when migrating would be preferrable. If the wiki ends up existing for another few years, then having chosen a solution that is known to be developed for the next few years would be preferrable, so Mediawiki. And then, if it's still up to me administrating it, I'd have liked to choose an application I want to run. Then, when the migration should be done, who is the one to migrate the data? Is it up to me? Then I'd prefer to have something *I* can read, so ikiwiki with perl is not very useful for that. If there are few articles anyway (but useful ones), I could as well migrate data from fossil by hand. If the old wiki was Mediawiki, but there are many volunteers who'd help migrating the data to the new wiki, the software of the old one doesn't matter. This is *not* about technical matters, it's solely about who is going to make it, with which preferences, and which expectations about user and article count you do have. > Amitai has reiterated that getting wiki.netbsd.org ready for prime time > wouldn't involve so much effort. Why not *at least* investigate this idea > instead of running away? As schmonz pointed out, this is a completely different task and much more work. I just do *not* write perl, and even if I learned, doing it in a way and complexity to help with that wiki would take ages. Regards, Julian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature