Re: Bug#505254: Please also decrease the number of adopted pages displayed
David Prévot wrote:
> Le 22/04/2011 11:02, Martin Eberhard Schauer a écrit :
>> 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).
Yes, I've been griping about various bits of Debian jargon lately, but
the terminology of Orphaned packages seems intuitive enough.
Declaring an ITA starts an "adoption process" that ends when you make
an upload that puts the formerly formally orphaned package under your
care, and once that happens it's off the WNPP list's books. (The
Debian adoption agency never does followup inspections...)
I suppose "in adoption" isn't 100% explicit about the package only
being "in an ongoing putative adoption process", but I can't think of
any clearer way of saying it that's worth the effort.
(On the other hand "orphan libraries" in the deborphan sense has
always struck me as being backwards, since it's the things that
depended on them that have disappeared...)
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Reply to: