Re: Bug#505254: Please also decrease the number of adopted pages displayed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
Le 22/04/2011 11:02, Martin Eberhard Schauer a écrit :
>> On the contrary, I wonder if this (and offering the page organized by
>> age) wouldn't be a good place to spot packages being adopted for a too
>> long time, so people may wish to take action. In this regard we could
>> also add (and organize by) last activity.
>>
> perhaps I misunderstood the Debian meaning of adoption ...
> I thought adoption is close to family life. If I adopted a child
> five years ago, it is (at least formal) part for the family for five
> years. To me being adopted meant being worked on (including
> new updates) in the debian context.
Sure, but once formerly adopted, the ITA bug should be closed and the
package won't appear on this page anymore. The problem of huge adoption
time is the same as the inaccurate preparation time spotted in #604048:
for example, xbae you took as an exemple was offered for adoption 1851
days ago, mas orphaned last year, and has only been marked as ITA two
weeks ago (so it's only “in adoption” for 13 days, but as Gerfried noted
it #604048, it might get really tricky to get this information in an
accurate way.
instead of being “1851 days in adoption”, I would propose to mark it as
“1851 days in adoption, last activity 13 days ago” (and offer also this
page organized by activity).
> I am okay with any other solution indicating or avoiding
> outdated information. It is highly appreciated that you already
> discuss it with Justin.
Adding d-l10n-english for further input.
Regards
David
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)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=EkvD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: