On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> 2008/2/8 Paulo Santos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Hi John,
> >
> > This is purely a test instance, to prepare the actual procedure of the live
> > upgrade.
> >
> >
>
> Are the steps that it took to get the step instance into place written
> somewhere?
2008/2/8 Paulo Santos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi John,
>
> This is purely a test instance, to prepare the actual procedure of the live
> upgrade.
>
>
Are the steps that it took to get the step instance into place written
somewhere? 1) in case it needs to be done again, and 2) to help others
who wil
Hi John,
This is purely a test instance, to prepare the actual procedure of the live
upgrade.
Paulo
On Feb 8, 2008 6:06 PM, John Poelstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike McGrath said the following on 02/07/2008 05:22 PM Pacific Time:
> > We've successfully gotten a Moi
Mike McGrath said the following on 02/07/2008 05:22 PM Pacific Time:
We've successfully gotten a Moin 1.6 install up and migrated. Time for us
to sit down, take a look and let us know what's up. Here's the ticket.
There's likely to be lots of non-blocking bugs during this
We've successfully gotten a Moin 1.6 install up and migrated. Time for us
to sit down, take a look and let us know what's up. Here's the ticket.
There's likely to be lots of non-blocking bugs during this upgrade. We'll
have to find how different things
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> I'm for it.
>
> I handed off my patch to MrBawb but we knew we'd have to maintain a
> version of the patch against 1.5.x for our use and one against
> upstream's development branch. Having our patch apply to something more
> recent can only help that
Mike McGrath wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Just a reminder, that Moin 1.6.0 is released:
>> http://moinmo.in/MoinMoinRelease1.6
>>
>> Apparently 1.6 also has discussion pages, I've never tested those, but it
>> seems this is something people have bee
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Just a reminder, that Moin 1.6.0 is released:
> http://moinmo.in/MoinMoinRelease1.6
>
> Apparently 1.6 also has discussion pages, I've never tested those, but it
> seems this is something people have been missing.
Interesting. We'll
Hi all,
Just a reminder, that Moin 1.6.0 is released:
http://moinmo.in/MoinMoinRelease1.6
Apparently 1.6 also has discussion pages, I've never tested those, but it
seems this is something people have been missing.
--
Ville-Pekka Vainio
___
Fedora-i
Mike McGrath wrote:
> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> Mike McGrath wrote:
>>
>>> Another idea, what good and bad would come from us upgrading to the 1.6
>>> beta?
>>>
>>>
>> What features were you thinking it provides us with? Better ability to
>> cache pages?
>>
>
> That, the other thing I'm
Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote:
Mike McGrath kirjoitti:
Another idea, what good and bad would come from us upgrading to the 1.6
beta?
Good: Xapian integration and with it, hopefully a better search?
http://moinmo.in/HelpOnXapian
Yeah, we can certainly do that too.
I guess I started thi
Mike McGrath kirjoitti:
> Another idea, what good and bad would come from us upgrading to the 1.6
> beta?
Good: Xapian integration and with it, hopefully a better search?
http://moinmo.in/HelpOnXapian
--
Ville-Pekka Vainio
___
Fedora-infrastructure-li
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Mike McGrath wrote:
Another idea, what good and bad would come from us upgrading to the 1.6
beta?
What features were you thinking it provides us with? Better ability to
cache pages?
That, the other thing I'm thinking of is if we're going to start
patching
Mike McGrath wrote:
> Another idea, what good and bad would come from us upgrading to the 1.6
> beta?
>
What features were you thinking it provides us with? Better ability to
cache pages?
Here's another thought: is it only page saves which are causing us
problems? I think moin has a similar U
On Dec 20, 2007 7:20 PM, Mike McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another idea, what good and bad would come from us upgrading to the 1.6
> beta?
>
Well my questions would be:
What are we trying to accomplish?
Who is on base to accomplish this?
I am not sure that this would be the best 'python
Another idea, what good and bad would come from us upgrading to the 1.6
beta?
-Mike
___
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Dimitris Glezos kirjoitti viestissään (lähetysaika Wednesday, 6. June 2007
20:11:16):
> O/H Paulo Santos έγραψε:
> > Personally i would go for 1.7, since im sure that noone will want to
> > maintain their own moin branch, and keep patching it manually without
> > breaking the rest of the "new" pat
O/H Paulo Santos έγραψε:
> Personally i would go for 1.7, since im sure that noone will want to
> maintain their own moin branch, and keep patching it manually without
> breaking the rest of the "new" patches.
Working with upstream 1.7 sounds more sane.
-d
--
Dimitris Glezos
Jabber ID: [EMAI
Karsten,
Personally i would go for 1.7, since im sure that noone will want to
maintain their own moin branch, and keep patching it manually without
breaking the rest of the "new" patches.
Paulo
On 6/6/07, Karsten Wade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Last summer we were tracking GSoC changes agai
Last summer we were tracking GSoC changes against the 1.5 trunk of Moin.
Those change never got merged, so did not make the 1.6 release. FWIW,
we're still looking for someone interested in Python, DocBook, and Moin
to help maintain those patches; if we did, we might get them accepted
into the trun
20 matches
Mail list logo
