I wrote a lengthy reply but in the end it did not make sense to me to repeat my arguments. Thus I will try to keep it short and summarise the answers: If there is no openSUSE KDE team employed at openSUSE we should get rid of most of http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:KDE_team since reading things like "SUSE employees working mainly on maintaining and extending KDE for openSUSE and SUSE Linux Enterprise:" or even "And from other SUSE teams:" triggers wrong hopes if one wants to put it nicely. -"You" are the community: as part of that I vote for getting rid of "openSUSE stable" since it does not work anyway the way it is supposed to. I did mention that opinion in the thread on factory, that's my vote. -Contribution: I do not see how shifting around a few repos will suddenly increase contribution to e.g. KDS. People could have done that in the past via SRs already. One might argue back and forth about whether "real" commitment includes the willingness to deal with osc, i.e. the command line. IMHO those that are willing and able to use osc do so already. Having a GUI lowers the hurdles to contribute. Yet anything related to linking is not maintainable with the webgui. In the past, doing a SR and others updating the link after accepting the SR, did not work well. Whatever repo consists of links will suffer compared to the "real" repo. KR48 has proved this in the past, I do not see why it should be different with KR49. -Other desktops' teams provide stable releases: That might be the case, I only use KDE and hence cannot comment on the stability and update policy of other DEs. As long as they follow "openSUSE stable" instead of "upstream stable", i.e. shipping all bugfix releases as regular updates, they are on a different schedule than the one I support. Other distros do ship bugfix releases and are also successful. I was told that a fixed set of bugs is better than shipping dozens of bugfixes with the potential danger of a regression as update – even if the latter would get fixed within a reasonable amount of time and the possibility to revert until the regression is fixed. I do not agree with that. For me a stable openSUSE consists of the base system and a repo with the latest minor upstream KDE release. That's the stable release I want to contribute to. KDS is not stable for me but simply frozen and kind of unmaintained. -Without KDF there would be no room for large packaging changes etc.: I'd assume that this kind of change does not happen within the schedule of minor upstream releases, i.e. it would happen in KUSC and not KRxy. -There is no evidence that KDF worked worse than KR49 does now and you have not experienced any nasty issues in KR49 yet: I mentioned the pnm example. People submitted the update to KDF it was accepted but never made it to the user, because there is an extra mile which not even the paid employee did want to go. In KRxy the new pnm was submitted, got accepted and shipped to the user. There were some packages broken in KDF for weeks or e.g. calligra not updated for months. KR49 is not worse than that but rather better. KR48 had similar issues as KDF because links were not updated. Sure there could be some nasty issues in the future, but "KDF SR to official update" even failed for simple issues. And my claim is that most people concentrate on one repo + a few extra packages here and there. But not KDS + KDF + updating links to KRxy, always switching back an forth updating a link here, doing a backport there, making sure it gets into the official updates etc. Sven -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kde+owner@opensuse.org