[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

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

> 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/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: