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

Martin-Éric Racine q-funk at
Wed Sep 9 16:55:26 BST 2009

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Daniel Holbach<daniel.holbach at> wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 09.09.2009, 18:04 +0300 schrieb Martin-Éric Racine:
> 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.
> 20new%20packages

Interesting. That could solve the issue for GX2 support in Hardy.

>> 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.

Argh, it has been several weeks since I last checked those. I should
have made a note of which ones, back then.

>> 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".

Right, I was referring to the LTSP pages as an exemple. In that
particular case, back then, only Oliver Grawert knew for sure what is
up-to-date about LTSP on the Ubuntu wiki.

>> 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?

This could indeed be useful to document, as the methodology for
getting involved upstream or with Debian is fairly similar and
provides equally rewarding dividents. I suppose that documenting how I
got involved with xf86-video-geode and what I learned from that
process would provide a good starting point.


More information about the Motu-council mailing list