Progress of migration to plone? IRC meeting suggestion

[Patrick W. Barnes]

On Monday 24 July 2006 11:07, Greg DeKoenigsberg <gdk at redhat.com> wrote:
> /me is still a bit uncertain about the goals of the plone migration.
>
> What is it that we need in a website, exactly, that the wiki at fp.o isn't
> giving us?
>
> It seems like maybe the reason we're not seeing Plone's progress is
> because it's not on the front burner, for whatever reason.
>
> The standard disclaimer: as always, I could be completely wrong.
>

I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head.  Since the wiki has been 
doing so well for us, nobody is in a huge hurry to make the Plone site 
happen.  That's not to say that we don't want the Plone site.  It will still 
provide many advantages that we want or need.  Progress continues to happen, 
and the effort certainly hasn't been forgotten.

Right now, the first item on the Plone to-do list is an upgrade to our Zope 
and Plone installations.  We want to move to a newer version of Plone that 
supports more advanced authentication features.  We'll most likely be trying 
to integrate Plone with our upcoming Account System rewrite using those 
authentication features.  This is in the Infrastructure team's ballpark, and 
we'll be getting help from Jon Steffan, who has helped Fedora Unity put 
together a similar setup.  When we first started on this idea, Jon had 
packaged the new versions for Unity, but they weren't in Fedora Extras.  
Thanks to Jon and Aurelian Bompard, the new versions are now in Fedora 
Extras.

The current blockers for that item are as follows:

1.  The platform currently installed on fpserv (the Plone site), CentOS, is 
not running a recent-enough version of Python to handle the new Zope version.  
The new Plone version requires the new Zope version.  We'll either have to 
upgrade Python or the entire system to something more recent.  If we move the 
system to Fedora Core 5, we'll be able to install the new Zope and Plone 
versions from Fedora Extras.  We're just not sure that Fedora is right for 
these servers due to its short lifecycle.

2.  We'll have to handle some of the planning for the new Account System to 
make sure that the Plone authentication will be compatible.  The 
Infrastructure team has to decide whether it will be using SQL or LDAP as the 
storage backend for the new system, and a compatible schema will have to be 
created for that backend.  In theory, we could put something together that 
works for now and make revisions for compatibility later, but we might save 
ourselves some hassle by doing a little planning first.

We plan to keep the PloneToDo page up-to-date as further developments come 
along.  We haven't set target dates for some of these tasks since they are 
often dependent upon the work of others.  Rest assured that we're staying on 
top of this.

-- 
Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes
nman64 at n-man.com

http://www.n-man.com/

LinkedIn:
http://www.linkedin.com/in/nman64

Have I been helpful?  Rate my assistance!
http://rate.affero.net/nman64/
-- 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-websites-list/attachments/20060725/41aebb0e/attachment.sig>