[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: one CMS



----- Original Message -----
From: Nigel Jones <dev nigelj com>
To: "For maintainers and developers of all formal Fedora
websites." <fedora-websites-list redhat com>
Subject: Re: one CMS
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:01:38 +1200

>On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 16:01 -0700, Karsten 'quaid' Wade
>> wrote: I'm ready, let's do this.
>> 
>> We need one CMS solution (for sanity sake), although >1
>install might be
>> OK(?), to cover:
>> 
>> * fedoraproject.org
>> * docs.fedoraproject.org
>> 
>> We need to move some content from the wiki (Licensing/*,
>> Legal/*, Packaging*) to the CMS.
>> 
>> Why a CMS?  Read this:
>> 
>>
>http://iquaid.org/2008/08/13/why-and-where-fedora-needs-a-cms-solution/
>> 
>> Getting a CMS is a solution to a blocker for upgrading
>> MediaWiki.  The code we use for MW ACLs is not supported
>in the latest release, and our
>> version is going out of security update support.  By
>moving all content
>> out of the wiki that needs ACLs, we don't have to have
>> that code and upgrading is made possible.  That also gets
>> us to where we can use Nigel's localization setup.
>> 
>> Reportedly we'll get a speed improvement on the wiki
>> without the HNP code.  So sayeth Nigel.  See
>#fedora-admin for details. Okay, heres the run down, in a
>completely unscientific test (although nearly scientific),
>I found that Mediawiki+HNP makes the wiki THREE times
>slower.
>
>Now the problems also are (with the current setup):
>1. HNP does not support Mediawiki > 1.11.2
>2. Per 1. we are locked into Mediawiki 1.11.2
>3. Per 2, we won't have any security updates once Mediawiki
>1.13.x comes out (anytime now)
>4. We are limited in options for l10n content
>5. With the current state of the Mediawiki codebase, it
>could be more desirable (imo) for us to work off SVN
>versions like Wikipedia etc do (they update the wiki every
>couple of days from SVN once it's been proven as working on
>the test wiki). 6. HNP is just slow, and the code is
>> disgusting. 
>> CMS must haves
>> --------------
>> * Good security record
>> * Proactive security mindedness of developer community
>> * Flexible enough auth system to attach to FAS
>> * RSS
>> * ...
>> 
>> CMS should haves
>> ----------------
>> * OpenID
>> * WYSIWYG editor
>> * ...
>> 
>> Have at it!
>
>http://www.opencms.org
>
>That said... http://www.silverstripe.com looks rather
>nifty.  Plus they are having a meetup in Auckland not too
>far from me, so if we are interested I'll pop along and say
>hi on behalf of Fedora :)
>
>- Nigel
>


What about Drupal? http://www.drupal.org

- Yannick




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]