Pending SRU Request; What to do?

Mario Limonciello superm1 at
Mon Nov 19 11:56:40 GMT 2007

Martin Pitt wrote:
> Ah, this is a piece of information that I missed. It is just
> surprising that nobody complained about this during the development
> cycle.
Well, I don't see it as overly surprising.  Like I said, this hardware
is becoming closer and closer to extinct.  Also, people with MythTV
boxen tend to not to like to upgrade their boxes until a stable release
so as to not annoy families when something breaks in unstable.
> So the ivtv backend specifically applies to the pvr-350, and no other
> hardware? If we get testing confirmation on some other hardware which
> also uses this driver I would have a much better conscience when
> accepting this.
> If that is true, then the SRU is appropriate.
Yes, the PVR-350 is the only device that is able to use the IVTV output
for a few lines information regarding this.
> Right, it's not official policy any more, but since this is not a
> 'standard' SRU, I wanted to get some more opinions.
I understand your point about looking for more opinions.  Hopefully
there are some more takers off -devel :)
> I object to this bit of the current MOTU SRU policy since it toally
> lacks peer review and acknowledgement. I raised this to the TB a week
> ago, but did not get an answer yet. But redesigning the MOTU SRU
> policy is a separate discussion, of course.
I'll wait for information back from the TB before I'll comment back here
on this at all (and in a different thread)
> If my role for MOTU SRU is merely an archive monkey, then I wouldn't.
> But since we currently do not have any peer review in MOTU SRU I
> review the universe SRUs anyway to check them for sanity and errors,
> and thus I think I do have some implicit responsibility.
> I said that with my ubuntu-sru hat on, not with ubuntu-archive. In
> principle you are right, we shouldn't need to do any in-depth review,
> but *someone* should. Changing stable releases without *any* peer
> review feels very wrong to me. At the moment I just (ab?)used my
> archive admin hat to get a more in-depth discussion about non-obvious
> SRUs like this one.
> I hope that the outcome of the TB discussion is a sanitation of the
> current MOTU SRU processs and reintroduction of peer review, so that
> the burden of review is taken off my shoulders and put back to the
> MOTUs.
I do hope that a satisfactory reviewing system will eventually be put in
place that you (and other archive admins) won't need to be implicitly
taking upon this responsibility.

Kind Regards,

Mario Limonciello
superm1 at

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : 

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list