<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Martin Pitt wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:20071119113627.GA10873@piware.de" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Ah, this is a piece of information that I missed. It is just surprising that nobody complained about this during the development cycle. </pre> </blockquote> 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. <blockquote cite="mid:20071119113627.GA10873@piware.de" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> 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. </pre> </blockquote> Yes, the PVR-350 is the only device that is able to use the IVTV output driver. See <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/video4linux/README.ivtv">http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/video4linux/README.ivtv</a> for a few lines information regarding this. <blockquote cite="mid:20071119113627.GA10873@piware.de" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Right, it's not official policy any more, but since this is not a 'standard' SRU, I wanted to get some more opinions. </pre> </blockquote> I understand your point about looking for more opinions.  Hopefully there are some more takers off -devel :) <blockquote cite="mid:20071119113627.GA10873@piware.de" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">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. </pre> </blockquote> I'll wait for information back from the TB before I'll comment back here on this at all (and in a different thread) <blockquote cite="mid:20071119113627.GA10873@piware.de" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">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. </pre> </blockquote> <blockquote cite="mid:20071119113627.GA10873@piware.de" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">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. </pre> </blockquote> 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, <pre class="moz-signature" cols="80">-- Mario Limonciello <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:superm1@gmail.com">superm1@gmail.com</a> </pre> </body> </html>