Thread: Can we lock down the old developer wiki?
It says here that some folks haven't gotten the word yet about the old wiki being dead: http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&days=30 Can we get in their face a bit more? regards, tom lane
Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> writes: > On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Tom Lane wrote: >> It says here that some folks haven't gotten the word yet about the >> old wiki being dead: >> http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&days=30 > Nothing to see here; one "this content moved" added to a page directing to > the new URL, and the others were all replicated onto the main site a few > hours later, presumably after that person noticed what happened. Well, yeah, but they still had to do it twice. regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > It says here that some folks haven't gotten the word yet about the > old wiki being dead: > > http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&days=30 > > Can we get in their face a bit more? I could have sworn we already moved all the links... Dave? Can't we just put in a nice redirect? Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Tom Lane wrote: > It says here that some folks haven't gotten the word yet about the > old wiki being dead: > http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&days=30 Nothing to see here; one "this content moved" added to a page directing to the new URL, and the others were all replicated onto the main site a few hours later, presumably after that person noticed what happened. -- * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 6:18 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > > It says here that some folks haven't gotten the word yet about the > > old wiki being dead: > > > > > http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&days=30 > > > > Can we get in their face a bit more? > > > > I could have sworn we already moved all the links... Dave? Can't we just > put in a nice redirect? I put in a banner on every page that was migrated - it's pretty hard to miss. I don't know if that can contain an auto redirect. We could probably hack up an apache rewrite rule to do it at the http level if we're now happy to completely lose the old wiki. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Dave Page wrote: > We could probably hack up an apache rewrite rule to do it at the http > level if we're now happy to completely lose the old wiki. In the last month I've fished three things out of the old wiki that didn't make it over to the new one: one from my user page, one from a talk page, and another thing I realized I needed out of the old page history. There's still a small amount of information that's there but not on the new one people may yet miss. In that same time, exactly one person made two trivial wasted changes to the old wiki in a session, went "oops, did that on the wrong one", then made the same changes to the correct wiki shortly afterward. My response remains: so what? That's a really small problem. Sure, eventually the old site will go poof, but I'm not seeing any evidence that needs to be accelerated--especially since there are some small unmigrated bits lingering around. -- * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
Dave Page wrote: > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 6:18 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: >> Tom Lane wrote: >> >>> It says here that some folks haven't gotten the word yet about the >>> old wiki being dead: >>> >>> >> http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&days=30 >>> Can we get in their face a bit more? >>> >> I could have sworn we already moved all the links... Dave? Can't we just >> put in a nice redirect? > > I put in a banner on every page that was migrated - it's pretty hard > to miss. I don't know if that can contain an auto redirect. > > We could probably hack up an apache rewrite rule to do it at the http > level if we're now happy to completely lose the old wiki. If we do that, people will never update their bookmarks.. Is it possible to change the pages so they *only* contain the banner and not the contents? That would be better, IMHO. //Magnus
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > > If we do that, people will never update their bookmarks.. I thought I was the one that always used that argument, only to be told not to break existing urls :-p > Is it possible to change the pages so they *only* contain the banner and > not the contents? That would be better, IMHO. Yeah, but as far as I know that would require manually editing each page. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> wrote: > On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Dave Page wrote: > > > > We could probably hack up an apache rewrite rule to do it at the http > > level if we're now happy to completely lose the old wiki. > > > > In the last month I've fished three things out of the old wiki that didn't > make it over to the new one: one from my user page, one from a talk page, > and another thing I realized I needed out of the old page history. There's > still a small amount of information that's there but not on the new one > people may yet miss. > > In that same time, exactly one person made two trivial wasted changes to > the old wiki in a session, went "oops, did that on the wrong one", then made > the same changes to the correct wiki shortly afterward. My response > remains: so what? That's a really small problem. Sure, eventually the old > site will go poof, but I'm not seeing any evidence that needs to be > accelerated--especially since there are some small unmigrated bits lingering > around. Fair 'enuff. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Dave Page wrote: > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> Is it possible to change the pages so they *only* contain the banner and >> not the contents? That would be better, IMHO. > > Yeah, but as far as I know that would require manually editing each page. Yuck. Unless it can be scripted, that sounds like a bad idea :-) //Magnus
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 01:05:32 -0400 Tom Lane wrote: > Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> writes: > > On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Tom Lane wrote: > >> It says here that some folks haven't gotten the word yet about the > >> old wiki being dead: > >> http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&days=30 > > > Nothing to see here; one "this content moved" added to a page directing to > > the new URL, and the others were all replicated onto the main site a few > > hours later, presumably after that person noticed what happened. > > Well, yeah, but they still had to do it twice. This person learned - the hard way ;-) There are 3 changes in 30 days, only one was a real modification. Every effort you spend here cost you a lot more time than checking every month or so if changes in the old wiki are not replicated into the new one. After some months the old wiki can be set read-only anyway and the problem goes away. Kind regards -- Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum German PostgreSQL User Group
"Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum" <adsmail@wars-nicht.de> writes:
> After some months the old wiki can be set read-only anyway and the
> problem goes away.
Well, if the wiki can be set read-only, why don't we do it now?
regards, tom lane
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:02:32 +0200 Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > Dave Page wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Magnus Hagander > > <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > > >> Is it possible to change the pages so they *only* contain the > >> banner and not the contents? That would be better, IMHO. > > > > Yeah, but as far as I know that would require manually editing each > > page. > > Yuck. Unless it can be scripted, that sounds like a bad idea :-) UPDATE pages SET content = 'Please go here instead'; Joshua D. Drake > > //Magnus > -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL SPI Liaison | SPI Director | PostgreSQL political pundit
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:24:25 -0400 Tom Lane wrote: > "Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum" <adsmail@wars-nicht.de> writes: > > After some months the old wiki can be set read-only anyway and the > > problem goes away. > > Well, if the wiki can be set read-only, why don't we do it now? We probably could, but the discussion shows, that minor corrections in the old wiki can be useful too. Kind regards -- Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum German PostgreSQL User Group