On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Tim Lyons <guy.linton@gmail.com> wrote:
I put a discussion of 'Step Relationships' in the wiki [1] when trying to
resolve bug 5859 [2]. (The issue at the time was to do with whether the
stepchildren had to reside with the stepparent, which is not the issue

I don't think I specifically discuss adoption.

question 1 repeated below for clairity:

1.   2 parents Charles and Dorthy adopt a baby girl, Alice, then have a son, Bob, by birth.  I would call Alice and Bob FULL brother and sister TO each other as they connect to the same parents, Gramps says, "Alice is the stepsister of Bob" or "Bob is the stepbrother of Alice".  I would say that Charles is Alice's Father, Gramps says Charles is Alice's stepfather.  Who's right in these cases?

On the question 1. I thought that if Alice and Bob are children in the same
family, then they would be given as Full brother and sister. Have you
created two families for Charles and Dorothy, one for the natural child and
one for the adoption. (I may have misunderstood what I wrote at the time).

I have just a single family with parents Charles and Dorthy and children Alice and Bob.  Bob is the natural born son of Charles and Dorthy while Alice is the adopted Daughter of Charles and Dorthy.   Gramps says, "Alice is the stepsister of Bob" or "Bob is the stepbrother of Alice" as well as "Charles is Alice's stepfather"  By the blood definition of family this is correct but by the broader social definition (whatever that may be and defining that is likely part of the problem here) it is not.
On the question 2. I think you are right, but perhaps the Relationship
Calculator gives the wrong result because finding the correct result is
computationally too expensive: at the wiki says:

"The Gramps Relationship Calculator (Tools->Utilities->Relationship
Calculator...) works by a recursive algorithm starting from a person and
going up through all parents [7] to find a common ancestor. Since a person
and their stepmother do not share a common ancestor, they will appears as
'unrelated' in the calculator. It is not proposed to change this outcome,
because looking at all marriages for each person (particularly recursively
for all ancestors) would be very expensive in run-time, for little benefit.

[1] http://www.gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php?title=Step_relationships
[2] http://www.gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=5859


View this message in context: http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/calculating-relationships-in-gramps-tp4660535p4660544.html
Sent from the GRAMPS - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET
Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost.
Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead
Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes.
Gramps-users mailing list