application: main upload rights for xserver-xorg-video-geode

Daniel Holbach daniel.holbach at
Wed Sep 9 16:31:54 BST 2009

Am Mittwoch, den 09.09.2009, 18:04 +0300 schrieb Martin-Éric Racine:
> I think one specific aspect that remains unclear to me is the
> distinction between what should go into an SRU, versus what should
> preferably go into a backport. Right now, the impression I get is that
> backports should be avoided, if only because the backport team has a
> very nasty stance that one should "at least *try* getting your fix
> approved as an SRU first and only come to us if it was denied, or else
> we're gonna ignore you and kill baby kittens." That feels vague and
> pointlessly rude. It also projects a rather sad idea of Ubuntu's
> willingness to backport anything. I wonder why.

I get the feeling you got the wrong impression here. We are very picky
about what gets into an SRU, but are more lax about backports.

> Likewise, looking for info about how to become an Ubuntu developer, I
> found several pages that start by saying that the instructions are
> elsewhere and yet still go ahead and try to explain what *was* the
> process, before templates and other more formal approaches were
> adopted.
> I think that what I mean is that a lot of wiki content needs to be
> periodically janitored and mothballed in a systematic way.

Which pages? It'd be nice if you brought up what exactly needs fixing so
we can start doing it right now. ubuntu-motu at lists.u.c or ubuntu-devel@
is totally fine for that.

> However, most of the time, only people who are directly involved in
> the process or project concerned by a given wiki page know what and
> where the most up-to-date information is, which is why I seldom dare
> mark any content as obsolete by myself. and should give a
very good overview over the "important stuff".

> In a similar way, I'm pretty much the only person in Ubuntu who knows
> 100% what is the current status of xf86-video-geode in all releases
> since Hardy, which bugs have been fixed in which upstream version,
> which changes fix what bug, what commit could potentially be
> cherry-picked for an SRU, etc. As such, I pretty much systematically
> document these issues in LP bugs, upstream README and Debian
> ChangeLogs, such as in and
> essentially try to maintain a tidy ship and leave as little lint
> behind me as possible.

Do you think it would make sense to document a "checklist" for people
who want to "adopt an upstream" and give them some guidance?

Have a great day,

More information about the Motu-council mailing list