Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Straw poll on wiki replacement
Straw poll on wiki replacement
From: Solomon Peachy via rockbox <rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2020 18:08:36 -0400
The Foswiki 1.1.x instance running on the rockbox www site has to go.
There are many reasons, but the most serious/pressing reason is that its
design flaws under even moderate load cause a DoS on the entire www
The obvious path is to upgrade Foswiki 1.1.x to 2.x, but that requires
creating a new 2.x site, manually importing/copying the old data over,
then fixing everything that broke along the way.
Given that level of effort, I'd rather ditch foswiki altogether, and
replace it with sometihng that sucks less.
The big question in my mind is if we replace it with another wiki engine
or some sort of static site generated out of a git repo -- and
ultimately that comes down to workflow.
Do we care about having an interactive editor with changes going live
instantly, or can it be done via git commits with the live site
auto-updated as part of a commit hook?
At the end of the day, the result is the same (revision-controlled
templated knowledgebase) with a roughly similar level of migration
effort (new template, migrating foswiki markup, server-side
infrastructure, etc etc..)
But a static site is arguably not as contributor-friendly as an
interactive wiki page editor, requiring git (&| gerrit access),
definitely a higher bar.
I use 'nikola' static site generator for my personal site, and already
host a dokuwiki instance that is vastly more performant and stable than
All else being equal I'd prefer a static site generator, especially with
my administrative hat firmly affixed.
(Oh, one other thing -- I want things to remain self-hosted, so moving
to something like the github wiki is off the table as far as I'm
Anyone else have thoughts on a path forward?
-- Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org (email&xmpp) _at_pizza:shaftnet dot org (matrix) High Springs, FL speachy (freenode)