On 6/13/06, Matt L. [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, Jim W. wrote:
Both RuWiki and Instiki are good choices for an easy to setup wiki.
Instiki is no longer easy to set up, it’s now a long troublesome
installation that I wasn’t able to make work.
It’s unfortunate. Instiki used to be a ‘no-brainer’ to setup. It may
not have been the most feature-ful wiki out there, but for internal
and personal use it was great. Now I think they’ve built it on Rails
and I think that seems to be overkill - at any rate, it’s no longer so
easy to setup and use.
You might want to try to find an older version of Instiki that isn’t
based on Rails. I wonder if the older, pre-Rails Instiki could be
revived and maintained as a completely seperate project.
Phil
Phil T. wrote:
not have been the most feature-ful wiki out there, but for internal
and personal use it was great. Now I think they’ve built it on Rails
and I think that seems to be overkill - at any rate, it’s no longer so
easy to setup and use.
You might want to try to find an older version of Instiki that isn’t
based on Rails. I wonder if the older, pre-Rails Instiki could be
revived and maintained as a completely seperate project.
You can get pre-Rails Instiki (0.9.2) using RubyGems:
gem install instiki --version “< 0.10”
I’m sure that branch could be revived and maintained separately, but
you’d need someone to take it on.
Cheers,
Dave
On 6/14/06, Dave B. [email protected] wrote:
Phil T. wrote:
On 6/13/06, Matt L. [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, Jim W. wrote:
Both RuWiki and Instiki are good choices for an easy to setup wiki.
Instiki is no longer easy to set up, it’s now a long troublesome
installation that I wasn’t able to make work.
That’s odd, I don’t remember any problems and I am running 0.10.2. I
just did a gem install AFAIR. This was one of the reasons I migrated
all my wikis to Instiki.
Phil T. wrote:
not have been the most feature-ful wiki out there, but for internal
and personal use it was great. Now I think they’ve built it on Rails
and I think that seems to be overkill - at any rate, it’s no longer so
easy to setup and use.
You might want to try to find an older version of Instiki that isn’t
based on Rails. I wonder if the older, pre-Rails Instiki could be
revived and maintained as a completely seperate project.
Phil
for personal use see http://www.tiddlywiki.com/ and it’s derivatives/
Instiki is no longer easy to set up, it’s now a long troublesome
installation that I wasn’t able to make work.
That’s odd, I don’t remember any problems and I am running 0.10.2. I
just did a gem install AFAIR. This was one of the reasons I migrated
all my wikis to Instiki.
0.10.x has upgraded to rails for the view/controller part - it still
does not use ActiveRecord but used Madeleine. The switch to AR came in
0.11, which is why it hasn’t been gemified.
On 6/14/06, Assaph M. [email protected] wrote:
What were the issues with Madeleine which caused it to be replaced with
AR?
Phil
What were the issues with Madeleine which caused it to be replaced with AR?
Speaking from personal perspective, it’s was a general instability
especially on Windows. I think the new madeleine releases aim to fix
those. There was also a very wierd bug, where zipped snapshot files -
generated with Ruby zlib bindings - sometimes could not be opened with
zlib based libraries, but will be openable with other zip utilities.
It was a rare hapenning and am not sure where the blame lies, but it
was annpying none the less.
Regardless of the above, I think the major drive was to make Instiki
more of a rails-app in general, somewhat scrificing the gem releases
until it’s sorted out. However the project seems to have halted on new
features (maintainers busy like the rest of us I imagine), so this was
left as is.
Please do not take the above as bad critiques of those pieces of
software. As a maintainer of FOSS projects myself, I know how hard it
is to support them over time. The above two are both fine examples of
software in general.