The Joomla! Forum ™

I visited the Wiki but a lot of things are being destroyed and changed the wrong way at present.

http://docs.joomla.org/Migrating_from_J ... Joomla_2.5

That article is related to upgrade from 1.6 onwards and has nothing to do with 1.5. The link comes on on many places (amongst others http://docs.joomla.org/Main_Page) and Title is plain wrong and will confuse lots of users. I tried to change the Title but cannot get it done. (This page has been locked to prevent editing: main page. ) Can you get this to the right person who owns this and get it corrected pls?

It is even worse. The one who has done this has removed almost all links to the real Joomla 1.5 migration guide from the wiki. Do a search on "migrate joomla 1.5 no results anymore.

With a lot of trouble I found the tutorial: http://docs.joomla.org/Tutorial:Migrati ... Joomla_1.6 The above links need another title or a different link and the Joomla 1.5 migration need a good space!

Cheers
Leo

_________________
--- Joomla Professional Support Services :: http://gws-desk.com ---
--- Joomla Professional and Specialized Hosting :: http://gws-host.com ---
--- Ready to Roll Joomla! Web Sites : 1 - 7 days only! :: @ gws-market.com ---

I had a problem with the wiki software when I tried to rename one of the pages after the release of 2.5. I had to poke around in the database to fix it and it's likely that I missed something.

So, how about changing...
from Migrating from Joomla 1.5 to Joomla 2.5
to Upgrading from Joomla 1.7 to Joomla 2.5

And
from Tutorial:Migrating_from_Joomla_1.5_to_Joomla_1.6
to Migrating from Joomla 1.5 to Joomla 2.5

(dropping out of the Tutorial: namespace which is not properly used anyway).

Does that sound right?

Chris.

_________________
Joomla Leadership Team - Production Working Group

Joomla Web Services http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/964120480/joomla-web-services
Lion Coppice http://www.lioncoppice.org

Understand the problems...Was looking to assist but no way able to change a thing. Sounds good as long as we keep the article and it gets a prominent position somewhere since it is mighty hot at present (just looking at the mountain of migrations we perform for users)

Also Chris please do not "lock" the http://docs.joomla.org/Tutorial:Migrati ... Joomla_1.6 since I was planning to overhaul that to reflect EoL of 1.6/1.6 and focus the article on 1.5 to 1.7 unless someone is already doing that?

Thanks for caring!

Leo

_________________
--- Joomla Professional Support Services :: http://gws-desk.com ---
--- Joomla Professional and Specialized Hosting :: http://gws-host.com ---
--- Ready to Roll Joomla! Web Sites : 1 - 7 days only! :: @ gws-market.com ---

@Leo
About a month ago someone asked in PM about overhauling it and how they go about it but nothing ever came of it and I got no response back. Other than some grumbling about the page I don't think anyone has volunteered to update it, so I would say if you want to work on the page then go ahead.

The only thing I would say is there are EoL versions currently in use and since this is a migration page, treat it as a migration page and make sure readers know the correct migration path(s) from each version to the latest version of Joomla.

In a perfect world everyone would follow planned upgrade paths and we could eliminate 1.6, but that just does not happen in reality. Just because someone has 1.6, they should not be excluded from knowing how to migrate onwards to something better when they are ready or they realize they are far behind (got hacked etc.).

Make the page title something better and non version specific

_________________
PhilD -- Unrequested PM's and/or emails may not get a response.
Security Moderator

Something like : Why I have to work now overtime to get my act together in migrating or upgrading to Joomla 2.5? (cannot post the real one in mind since than Global Mods will immediately give me a Board Warning)

Note I was the one who promised one month ago already that I would overhaul that page as soon as J2.5. was released in Stable. So if you refer to me you might be right: I only had (as you might have seen on Forum/Bug Squad and Tracker) some other minor details (?) on hand during the past few days so I will tend to this after 2.5.1 has seen the light

Leo

_________________
--- Joomla Professional Support Services :: http://gws-desk.com ---
--- Joomla Professional and Specialized Hosting :: http://gws-host.com ---
--- Ready to Roll Joomla! Web Sites : 1 - 7 days only! :: @ gws-market.com ---

Chris & Leo -

I'd like to revive the efforts to repair the documentation wiki's database and the loopy redirects in the 1.5 Migration pages.

The http://docs.joomla.org/Migrating_from_J ... Joomla_2.5 has the title "Migrating from Joomla 1.5 to Joomla 1.6+" and is "Redirected from Migrating from Joomla 1.5 to Joomla 2.5." Joomla 1.6 has reached End of Life so all documentation should refer to 2.5.

There are other linking problems. If you are at the 1.6+ migration page and open the Discussion tab, you are shown the "Talk:Migrating from Joomla 1.5 to Joomla 1.6" page. (Note the absence of the plus sign.) Now try to open the Page tab. You are really in the "http://docs.joomla.org/Migrating_from_Joomla_1.5_to_Joomla_1.6" hierarchy. Now click on the link to the "Migrating from Joomla 1.5 to Joomla 1.6+" page. Nothing happens. You must use your browser's back button to return to the 1.6+ page.

A similar thing happens if you are at the 1.6+ page and open the History tab. You can't get back to the 1.6+ page. Is the 1.5 > 2.5 Migration page retrievable?

_________________
Charles

I noticed that and there are many redirects. IMHO pages should not be redirected. A new page should be created and the edit screen copied over. Any updates to reflect the new version can be then be made like the help pages linked from http://docs.joomla.org/Help15:Help_screens were changed for the linked pages of http://docs.joomla.org/Help17:Help_screens

Also (again IMHO) too many people have too many edit rights. An example of that was recently when an idiot went around trashing the contents of pages. Luckily Chris caught them and reversed the edits. Then banned the idiot. Unfortunately one of the edits did not reverse, a 'talk page' that had been moved. It took me ages to work out what had happened because Moving a page causes a redirect.

Methinks that certain editing rights like moving pages should be limited. Having the wiki open is good but sometimes 'too many cooks spoil the broth'. My knowledge of wiki editing is limited so I only contribute a small amount(because of fear of mucking things up). But there are a lot who are well intentioned but not with the skill to make major edits.

Perhaps those who wish to edit the wiki could be organised into groups with team leaders, each with specific sections ?

_________________
http://weblinksonline.co.uk/joomla-faq.html

Good or bad,, I think that is a function of the wiki software. It may also be difficult to remove a page once it is created at least there are strict guidelines on page removal.


Not sure if this can be done in an effective manner from wiki software. I think groups can be made, but... In order to protect/unprotect pages you have to be an administrator or above. No lower levels are allowed to do this and I;m not entirely clear if protect/unprotect can be assigned to a created group below an admin level.

The spirit of wiki is open collaboration amongst many people to improve an article or documentation. This means that anyone can edit an unlocked page. Along with this comes the possibility of vandalism and difference of opinion on what a page or documentation should contain or someone making additions/edits to a page (or replacing contents of a page) that essentially revert the information back to some earlier point without realizing it.
Here is a breakdown on what is allowed at what level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... s#Reviewer

It is unfortunate that some pages just have to be protected as wrong information or code changes, modification,etc. can cause issues with websites including security issues.
This makes it inconvenient to edit some pages
.

_________________
PhilD -- Unrequested PM's and/or emails may not get a response.
Security Moderator

I did not mean anyone remove the page' I meant that the edit page be copied an pasted into a new page. The old page only deleted by admin if surplus.


I did not mean groups in the wiki but team leaders of sections of the documentation. A clear hierarchy so that decisions could be made over major page changes. There is little or no communication in the Google groups Documentation. People are making major page changes without consultation.


Yes and the well intentioned outnumber the pratts. Perhaps more communication before moving or making major changes is the answer and not restricting edits.

Perhaps there are some guidelines for etiquette in editing the wiki ? More communication on https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/joomla-docs would help. Perhaps users can post asking opinions before they make a major edit ?

_________________
http://weblinksonline.co.uk/joomla-faq.html

There is a discussion or talk page attached to each wiki page for that purpose.

_________________
Charles

Tru but only people who go to the page see it. The google groups is a mailing list, anything their gets mailed so the discussion is widened.

_________________
http://weblinksonline.co.uk/joomla-faq.html

At the risk of going even further off topic, it appears now that there are three venues for meta discussions of the Joomla documentation: this Joomla forum, the talk pages associated with each docs Wiki page and Google Groups. Are there any others I should be monitoring?

_________________
Charles

I think that makes my point about lack of communication between well meaning contributors (I am well meaning as well).

_________________
http://weblinksonline.co.uk/joomla-faq.html

We are probably all going to get yelled at for off topic but...



Most pages consist of a number of 'sections' ( I think checklist 2 has 23) each which have to be opened and copied individually. Admins may be able to do it differently but if so that's increasing the load on the admins/editors who are already overworked.

While pages can be created with unique names the page title can only be changed by administrators. So if I create a page New1-Security Checklist 2 - Hosting and Server Setup and copy the contents of Security Checklist 2 - Hosting and Server Setup to it (Each edit section would have to be copied individually), then I would have to have the original page deleted and the new page renamed. Another way could be to have a scratch page for every page you wish to edit and after an admin review, have the admin copy the content from scratch to actual page. Neither scenario is desired as it increases the load on already overworked admins. You can Move a page, but that is not what is desired.



What your proposing is really against the open collaboration spirit of the wiki as to effectively have everything go through a 'team' leader, all pages under that teams control would need to be locked. I for one don't want to see this happen.



This is a recommended way (but see bold text as to why we can't use it.)
(From wikipedia help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_requests) The simplest approach for edit requests for a protected or semi-protected page is to use the View source tab on that page and use the "Submit an edit request" link at the bottom right; this automatically loads the correct talk page template.
This does not seem to be the case for the Joomla docs as there is no "Submit an edit request" link at bottom right when viewing source.

In addition: Where requests are made due to the editor having a conflict of interest (COI; see Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance), the {{request edit}} template should be used; it must be added manually to the relevant page's talkpage.
This also won't work in Joomla docs as there is apparently currently no {{request edit}} page/template

Since those options are rather out, you can contact one of the Contributors and Editing persons if there are any listed, or contact the person who made the majority of edits in history with the suggested change. These people likely know who to ask or can unlock the page for editing and it starts a dialog with the person who has made the most edits to the page in question.

Other avenues such as groups, forums, etc., while very good for discussion and debate, I find tend to produce erratic results in getting the actual edits done and done correctly.
That's not to say they should not be used, it is just that someone has to step forward at the beginning of the discussion and be willing to take on the actual editing process for the matter being discussed and make the edits according to what the discussion decided.

_________________
PhilD -- Unrequested PM's and/or emails may not get a response.
Security Moderator

The reason for using a wiki in the first place is to keep the barriers to participation as low as possible. The price we pay for that is that we have to be constantly on the lookout for spammers. But apart from the occasional sustained attack, we have so far been able to keep spammers under control. Only a relatively small number of pages have needed protection (like the Main page) because they are high-profile spam magnets. Anyone who wants to edit protected pages has but to ask and I would be happy to add them to the group that has edit rights for protected pages.

I think I'm right in saying that even on protected pages, the Talk page is still open for editing. So anyone who wants to amend a protected page merely has to add their request on the Talk page. Since I monitor *all* edits on the wiki, it will definitely be picked up by someone.

This open, low barrier policy has been hugely beneficial over the years and I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who have taken the trouble to make just a single, small edit. So I disagree with the statement that too many people have edit rights. Indeed, were it not for the certainty of getting hammered by spammers, I would even drop the requirement to register on the wiki before being allowed to edit it.

I certainly have no objection to anyone forming a team to take responsibility for particular aspects or areas of the wiki. This has already happened with the VEL, for example. My only concern is that we don't inadvertently promote the misconception that you have to be part of the team in order to make edits (although the VEL is an exception since that is one area where we do not want casual edits). I did look into the possibility of having edit rights to particular areas of the wiki restricted to specific user groups, but the wiki software does not make it easy and I think it rather goes against the open ethos of wiki editing anyway.

I'm actually quite comfortable with people making major changes without consultation. We have the tools to repair any damage should it turn out that the changes were made by a "pratt" and we also have the communications channels (the Talk: page, the Google group and this forum) to discuss anything controversial. Indeed, I would suggest that we don't have enough people willing to make major edits, especially "structural" changes, most likely because of the understandable fear of making a mess of things.

I can only repeat that people should feel free to just dive in and make improvements, large or small, but if they would prefer a second opinion before doing so, then by all means use the Talk page, the Google Group or the forum.

Chris.

_________________
Joomla Leadership Team - Production Working Group

Joomla Web Services http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/964120480/joomla-web-services
Lion Coppice http://www.lioncoppice.org

I would but that brings us neatly back to the original topic of this thread, the rejuvenation of the 1.5 to 2.5 migration page as mentioned at the end of the sixth message in this thread.

A. There should be a canonical page for each of the transition forms, 1.5 to 2.5 and 1.6/1.7 to 2.5. If the 1.5 to 2.5 page can be exhumed, the existing similar pages (1.5 to 1.6 and 1.5 to 1.6+) should buried once and for all.

B. There are two audiences to address:
1. Persons who want to migrate from version 1.5 to version 2.5.
2. Persons who want to upgrade from versions 1.6 and 1.7 to version 2.5

C. Persons in one of these audiences should be guided to the correct page if they land on the page intended for the other audience. Why are there (at least) two pages containing the instructions for the 1.6/1.7 to 2.5 transition? There are http://docs.joomla.org/Upgrading_from_J ... Joomla_2.5 and the vaguely-named http://docs.joomla.org/Upgrading_from_a ... ng_version.

D. http://docs.joomla.org/Upgrading_1.6.5_to_1.7, http://docs.joomla.org/Upgrade_1.6.5_to_1.6.6 and http://docs.joomla.org/Upgrading_from_1.6.4_or_earlier should probably be removed too.
http://docs.joomla.org/1.7.0_Check_Exis ... _Upgrading could be folded into some other page.
Is http://docs.joomla.org/Upgrade_Instructions still useful?

_________________
Charles

I definitely agree that a major tidy-up is needed.

My thinking is that we should have a single, central page ("Upgrading and migrating", say) which gives a list of upgrade instruction pages, listed in order of starting version number. I had started to put this together but I was getting bogged down in uncertainty about some of the links, particularly for 1.6. Here's where I got to:


Obviously the links are not right, but do you think that this is a good approach? As each version is released we only need to amend this one page, adding links to additional pages only when the upgrade/migration is sufficiently different from earlier ones to require a separate page.

Chris.

_________________
Joomla Leadership Team - Production Working Group

Joomla Web Services http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/964120480/joomla-web-services
Lion Coppice http://www.lioncoppice.org

The information order should be reversed. As an active Joomla user I shouldn't be punished for people that don't keep up.

@sovainfo
That is a good point though I think the page order should be as Chris has it. To the right at the top of the page there will be a table of contents so it will be easy to select the section of page you want. It keeps things neat, No one gets punished and nothing gets out of chronological order to possibly confuse someone.

@Chris
I like what you have for an outline so far. Then we Just need to write missing or rewrite existing pages to work with the outline.

@cmbay
There are two audiences to address:
1. Persons who want to migrate from version 1.5 to version 2.5.
2. Persons who want to upgrade from versions 1.6 and 1.7 to version 2.5

I would add and re arrange like this though
1. Persons who want to migrate from 1.0 to version 2.5
2. Persons who want to migrate from version 1.5 to version 2.5.
3. Persons who want to upgrade from versions 1.6 to version 2.5
4. Persons who want to upgrade from versions 1.7 to version 2.5

There are still quite a few people who run sites on 1.0.xx who may at some point wish to migrate. As documentation, there should be a path explained from each version to the latest version as Chris's outline shows.

I also think Dextercowley who wrote the Upgrading from an existing version page should get involved with this as he did a nice looking job on the page.http://docs.joomla.org/Upgrading_from_a ... ng_version
Being a newer Joomla user he may learn more about the platform by helping.

_________________
PhilD -- Unrequested PM's and/or emails may not get a response.
Security Moderator

Excellent!

We might also add a paragraph at the beginning of each instructions pages for those who may have landed on that page by mistake to get them to the new directory page.

Caution: This page contains instructions only for the [migration/upgrade] from version x.x to version y.y. If your site is not running version x.x, see <the Upgrading and Migrating> page.

_________________
Charles

+1 on adding an entry point as Chris suggests. I'm not too worried about the order. There is a case to be made for the most recent versions first. But there is also a case to be made for the most difficult updates first. In either case, I think it is a good approach to a vexing problem. Mark

_________________
Mark Dexter
"Well...how did I get here?"

Ok here is something to start with as far as pages go. Some existing information should go into these new pages. But I think the titles are descriptive enough that people can easily follow the order and pick the one they are using. At the top of the page there should probably be a how to determine your current version of Joomla. There are people who do not know how to find the current version.

Maybe also have info and a link somewhere on the page to the already existing pages on setting up a development environment (XAMPP etc.) for testing as this seems to be a common inclusion on many existing update/upgrade/migrate pages and tends to muddy up some of the info.

Migrating from 1.0 to 1.5 --> a new page

Upgrading 1.5 from an existing 1.5.x version --> a new page

Migrating from 1.5 to 2.5 --> a new page

Upgrading 1.6 from an existing 1.6.x version --> a new page
Maybe change title to:
Upgrading to 1.6.6 from an existing 1.6.x version
as I think this is a necessary step before going forward

Upgrade 1.6.5 to 1.6.6 --> not sure if this one is needed if page title is changed above

Upgrading from 1.6 or 1.7 to 2.5 --> should be:
Upgrading from 1.6 to 2.5

Upgrading 1.7 from an existing 1.7.x version --> a new page
Upgrading from1.7 to 2.5

Setting up and using a development enviroment --> link to an existing page after a short paragraph of info explaining.

Here is what it looks like so far. (This is the code Chris posted with minor edits.)

_________________
PhilD -- Unrequested PM's and/or emails may not get a response.
Security Moderator

Initial page has been created
http://docs.joomla.org/Upgrading_and_Migrating_Joomla

Page has the {{incomplete}} tag on it (since it is incomplete and I have also added a couple of links to existing docs.

I would say that if documentation for various parts is mostly good then use it (link it) and bring that the page up to date as needed instead of rewriting the entire page.

_________________
PhilD -- Unrequested PM's and/or emails may not get a response.
Security Moderator

Everything is there but not structured. Your page just makes more unstructured links. You are linking to pages that do not exist, that means that even more unstructured info. There is no structure, I have tried to add a little but found myself getting stuck. Because adding to that page is just adding more scrambled info from everywhere.

There needs to be a group of no more than 4 people with 1 person as Team leader to organise official documentation. Trying to structure something that by it's very nature is unstructured will not work.

The wiki is great there is no doubt about that but by it's very nature it is not structured. And trying to structure it just makes it more unstructured.

A quick Goolge search finds at least 5 pages on migrating from 1.x to 1.5 and about the same for 1.5 t0 1.6/1.7. If there is to be an index page created then

• ALL those pages need to be looked at
• One selected for each link on the index page
• Each of the pages (chosen as a link) should be edited with content from a similar page(s).
• The surplus pages deleted (nothing will be lost because it will have been copied into the main page for that part)
• The index page created with links to the relevant pages should be protected.
• The pages linked to from the index page would be editable by anyone like the wiki pages are now.
  

But the main thing is that the index page is protected and has structured links to existing pages.

_________________
http://weblinksonline.co.uk/joomla-faq.html

It is the content that matters. It is easy to see what's missing there! Suppose you are running J1.7.1 and want to go to J2.5.1.
The current documentation fails to tell you what to do.

Sorry you are incorrect because it is there
http://docs.joomla.org/Upgrading_from_J ... Joomla_2.5
So is 1.6.5 to 1.7 http://docs.joomla.org/Upgrade_1.6.5_to_1.7 and if you google you will find several other wiki pages as well. The problem is the content is not organised.

_________________
http://weblinksonline.co.uk/joomla-faq.html

It is only there for people that already know the answer. The documentation is meant for people that are looking for the answer.

Also it doesn't tell you to put the correct version in #__schemas.

I only knew it was there because I Googled it. And I only Googled it in the first place when someone in the forum wanted to how to do it. (Believe it or not there are people who ask questions and don't know how to use Google. So us volunteers need to do it for them).

To avoid taking this thread off topic perhaps start a thread for 'the correct version in #__schemas'


Your other post said "It is the content that matters. It is easy to see what's missing there! Suppose you are running J1.7.1 and want to go to J2.5.1.
The current documentation fails to tell you what to do."
But that was what I was disputing because IMHO the content is there and just needs organising.

_________________
http://weblinksonline.co.uk/joomla-faq.html

I have had an idea that might simplify this still further. I think we all agree that we have one page that pulls it all together: http://docs.joomla.org/Upgrading_and_Migrating_Joomla

But how about we put the detailed migration/upgrade instructions into sub-pages under that page, one for each version as it is released, like this:-
* Upgrading and Migrating Joomla/1.0
* Upgrading and Migrating Joomla/1.5
* Upgrading and Migrating Joomla/1.6
* Upgrading and Migrating Joomla/1.7

In each case the version number is the one you are starting from. By not explicitly stating the final version number in the page title, it saves us from having to rename pages as new versions are released. So, for example, when 3.0 is released we add the Upgrading and Migrating Joomla/2.5 page with migration instructions to 3.0, but when 3.1 is released we only have to adjust the text on that page without needing to rename any pages.

This also keeps things in line with the general principle that version-specific information is held in sub-pages.

All other pages can, I think, be either deleted or merged into one of the above.

Some of the minor version upgrades may not even require separate pages as they might turn out to be one-click updates. So it might be that an Upgrading and Migrating Joomla/3.0 page is not required until 4.0 is released.

What do you think?

Chris.

_________________
Joomla Leadership Team - Production Working Group

Joomla Web Services http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/964120480/joomla-web-services
Lion Coppice http://www.lioncoppice.org

Thanks Chris that is what I was trying to say and you put it more succinctly. And it still allows for anyone to edit/improve the sub pages.

I have one suggestion to what you put.

When the 'Upgrading and Migrating Joomla/1.0' pages are created from the various similar pages ... that prior to deleting any of the other pages, the originator (and main contributors) of the page be asked if they are happy that their contribution has been represented correctly in the new page.

That way nobody gets their hard work erased and they can see that their hard works is still there but just rearranged.

_________________
http://weblinksonline.co.uk/joomla-faq.html