On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 03:10:30PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 07:45:35PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > >> I think this is where language is important. In my opinion, the term > >> "adoption" will continue to mean taking on full responsibility for a > >> package as its new maintainer. The term "salvage", in my opinion, we > >> can define as a process for becoming a co-maintainer on a package with > >> a long-term possibility of becoming its maintainer.
> > This is an unhelpful redefinition of the term. The term "salvage" was > > introduced to *mean* orphaning/adopting a package when the maintainer is no > > longer fulfilling their responsibilities. > Why do we need two different terms defined as the exact same thing? > In other words, if both salvaging and orphaning mean the same thing, > then what's the point of salvaging? They don't mean the same thing. Maintainers orphan their own packages; adopters adopt orphaned (or RFAed) packages. Salvaging is the process of identifying packages that *should* be orphaned in the *absence* of the maintainer. > In my opinion salvaging (under the above definition) is something that > would be able to happen a lot sooner than orphaning because it is > initial a co-mainainter process, rather than a maintainer replacement > process. Comaintenance is irrelevant to the question at hand. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
