[Scons-users] Wiki not working

[Bill Deegan]

What about a bitbucket repo that triggers a readthedocs.org update?
That way we can do pull requests,etc..

Thoughts?

-Bill

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Gary Oberbrunner <garyo at oberbrunner.com>
wrote:

> Yes, that or ikiwiki or one of the other such tools.
>
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Matthew Swabey <mattaw at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  If I could interject that if you are thinking of moving to a new system
>> please use httrack to freeze the current wiki into static html for
>> reference purposes and historical purposes. Effectively unhackable and very
>> low on resources apart from the space :)
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/9/2014 2:41 PM, William Roberts wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Dirk Bächle <tshortik at gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09.12.2014 19:57, Bill Deegan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dirk,
>>>>
>>>> The real problem is that this particular wiki spikes the CPU usage on
>>>> our free server and if it stays too long too high cpu, they shut it down.
>>>> Then we need to figure out if it was hacked (again) and if not convince
>>>> them that it's safe to put back online.
>>>>
>>>>  Got that now. Thanks for the additional info.
>>>
>>>  The approveChanges is (unfortunately since it would be easier to solve
>>>> as you suggest) a secondary issue.
>>>>
>>>> The options are:
>>>> a) migrate to other wiki software (which we manage and run on same
>>>> server, possibly open to the same problem)
>>>> b) migrate to some other hosted solution (wiki on bitbucket, or other)
>>>>
>>>
>>  FYI The default wiki on bitbucket is limited. The permissions are
>> either Public (world writeable, world readbale think 0666) or Private
>> (project members only, 0660). However, if its private, non-project members
>> cannot even see it. I had this issue with using it and created a secondary
>> site. Recently, Bitbucket supports Markdown in their README files and you
>> can use that as a read only source of public information. Github doesn't
>> seem to have this limitation. I am not sure that if you pay for bitbucket,
>> if one gets different wiki permissions or capabilities.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> I'm heavily favoring b, as keeping said software secure and up to date
>>>> is really a waste of all/any of our time at this point. Better to spend
>>>> that time on SCons or other infrastructure.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>  My gut feeling tells me that we'll get hacked either way...but if you
>>> have some more insight about how alternatives would be more secure, that's
>>> fine with me. I just didn't want to switch for the only reason of having a
>>> neglected approval queue, and that was my first impression. Sorry for the
>>> noise...
>>>
>>> Dirk
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Scons-users mailing list
>>> Scons-users at scons.org
>>> https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>> Respectfully,
>>
>> William C Roberts
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Scons-users mailing listScons-users at scons.orghttps://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Scons-users mailing list
>> Scons-users at scons.org
>> https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Gary
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scons-users mailing list
> Scons-users at scons.org
> https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist4.pair.net/pipermail/scons-users/attachments/20141210/b9e0b3fc/attachment.html>