Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's packages
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?
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