Le 12/12/2015 12:08, Richard Brown a écrit :

- Evergreen 13.1 only has a planned support period of January 2016 to November 2016.

(I agree with the rest of your mail) may be our work could be to make shift to Leap easier. I mean better doc, may be upgrade scripts (Wagon??). the problem is not upgrade but problems coming during upgrades, so if we can make this a bare minimum, we can go on. for example, could we could collect the "zypper lr" of interested people, eventually build a common VirtualBox test appliance... and write accurate doc of how to go from one to the other? jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

On 12 December 2015 at 12:40, jdd wrote:

Le 12/12/2015 12:08, Richard Brown a écrit :

...

- Evergreen 13.1 only has a planned support period of January 2016 to November 2016.

(I agree with the rest of your mail)

may be our work could be to make shift to Leap easier. I mean better doc, may be upgrade scripts (Wagon??).

Wagon was never supported for openSUSE and is no longer supported for SLE. It is also irrelevant as this discussion includes additional repositories, and wagon used to remove all repositories that weren't part of the main distribution :)

the problem is not upgrade but problems coming during upgrades, so if we can make this a bare minimum, we can go on.

for example, could we could collect the "zypper lr" of interested people, eventually build a common VirtualBox test appliance...

and write accurate doc of how to go from one to the other?

Adding repositories to your machine makes it in many respects 'unsupported' and 'unsupportable' - it adds complexity, that complexity makes it very hard to write accurate, meaningful documentation, because you can very easily add stuff to your system that would invalidate what is intended by the distribution Also, when doing an upgrade, you might no longer need the repositories you have added previously, because the new version (Leap) obviously has newer stuff in it than 13.1.. so the idea of automatically upgrading to repositories should not even be considered - Why invalidate your system needlessly? Therefore, the best we can do is give general advice, which is what we do Upgrading from 13.1 to Leap is easy as long as you're on a x86_64 system. If you're on a 32-bit system, my advice is to either reinstall (if your hardware supports 64-bits) or purchase hardware which does support 64-bits and do a fresh install there There's two perfectly supported upgrade methods 'Offline' and 'Online' Offline - Insert Leap 42.1 DVD - Pick Upgrade - Allow the upgrade to remove all the repositories - Only add back the ones you are sure you need (the less, the better) - Upgrade..done Online (aka Zypper dup) This is more complicated, and should only be done if you really need to do the upgrade without turning off the machine And is documented here - https://en.opensuse.org/SDB:System_upgrade Really, we have valid, easy, supported upgrade mechanisms, people need to use them and if they find things that don't work or they think they can make better, they need to file bugs or send in pull requests so we can make it better..pretty tired with hearing 'upgrades are hard' without any real explanation of how we could make it better..especially when I've seen many, many, many, maaaaany upgrades to Leap now just work out fine -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Hi Axel, On 12 December 2015 at 17:16, Axel Braun wrote:

Sorry to say, but this is quite an arrogant answer. I will tell you why:

I'm hurt by you saying this. My statement is not intended to be arrogant, but a reflection of the reality as I see it.

I'm maintaining packages and demo-CD for some medical software, which has some interests in the developing countries around the world. It can be used by single doctors, but as well in Hospitals.

Many of those guys are happy to have some hardware at all, no matter how old it it, and it is most likely 32bit. And there is no point (-> money <-) in walking around the corner to the next hardware store to buy an upgrade.

The 32-bit demo on 13.1 has by far the most downloads, the template on Studio is IMHO more reliable than 13.2.

The openSUSE Project and the distributions we produce have a broader application than your medical software in developing countries Looking at the big picture, 32 bit downloads have not been a majority since openSUSE 12.2 which was released in Jan 2012 and reached end of life in 2014 12.3 released in March 2013 - Support Ended Jan 2015 64-bit downloads 45521 32-bit downloads 28196 Proportion of 32-bit downloads = 37% 13.1 released in November 2013 - Support is what we're discussing here 13.1 64-bit downloads 60138 13.1 32-bit downloads 39836 Proportion of 32-bit downloads = 39% 13.2 released in November 2014 13.2 64-bit downloads 103429 13.2 32-bit downloads 27727 Proportion of 32-bit downloads = 20% Your use case may buck this trend, but the Projects decision to not support the 32-bit Intel architecture in the future is supported by the numbers. Though ultimately the numbers are somewhat meaningless - we're a volunteer organisation, we support whatever our volunteers, collectively, decide to support And I think it's safe to say that the openSUSE community, as a whole, has demonstrated a lack of desire to support 32-bit Intel going forward - if there was volunteers willing to do it, we'd be doing it :) I don't say this to prevent or discourage anyone from stepping up and doing the work despite this. But I think it is the correct and honest thing to do is make the situation very clear, so if you or anyone else decides to do the work you realise the scale of the mountain you need to climb. And either encouraging repository maintainers to continue to support an obsolete architecture on an 'out of main support' distribution, or doing all that work yourself, is a lot of work.. but that's what needs to be done if what you are asking for is going to be viable..

Thats why I would like to transfer it to Evergreen, and thats why I'm asking for a build target fo OBS. Of course it is up to each maintainer to support this, but we have at least the basis on OBS.

I do not see how a Build Target for Evergreen is any better, or worse, than a Build Target for openSUSE:13.1 Therefore, as creating a Build target for Evergreen is more work than keeping the existing 13.1 Build Target, I really don't see the point.. If Evergreen had any sign of continuing after 13.1 then I'd see the benefit, but Evergreen 13.1 is expected to be the last Evergreen because of Leap, so I really do not see why we should be doing this.

Giving away the 32bit market is not a bright idea at all, but a consequence of the decision to reduce efforts on SUSE side and move everything to SLES basis. I feel it will reduce the overall importance and acceptance of openSUSE. But thats a different story.

Ending 32-bit support is a consequence of the decisions by the current maintainers of the openSUSE distributions to not bother doing it for Leap. It is a consequence of no other maintainers in the openSUSE community volunteering to do that work Please do not blame the corporate SUSE for a decision which we, the openSUSE Project, are collectively responsible for. It's within our power to change, if there are people within this community willing to do the work, build, test, and maintain a 32-bit distribution. That said, I'm not going to help, I'd like to see 32-bit Intel die, and as I do not have any 32-bit hardware available I am not in a position to help even if I felt differently on this topic -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Le 12/12/2015 18:39, Richard Brown a écrit :

13.1 released in November 2013 - Support is what we're discussing here 13.1 64-bit downloads 60138 13.1 32-bit downloads 39836 Proportion of 32-bit downloads = 39%

do you know of any enterprise that can leave 39% of his customers?

And I think it's safe to say that the openSUSE community, as a whole, has demonstrated a lack of desire to support 32-bit Intel going forward - if there was volunteers willing to do it, we'd be doing it :)

I regret that Leap not have 32 bits, but I can live with it. We only discuss now having *one* version (13.1) keeping 32 bits, for some years if possible

It is a consequence of no other maintainers in the openSUSE community volunteering to do that work

and of nobody documenting the hole process of building openSUSE.

It's within our power to change, if there are people within this community willing to do the work, build, test, and maintain a 32-bit distribution.

it's what is discussed here, only for 13.1, no reason to start again a 32/64 war... Leap 64 bits is the obvious successor, but may be later jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Le 12/12/2015 19:08, Richard Brown a écrit :

Evergreen/13.1 a little peculiar, as 13.2 will almost certainly be around for longer.

yes but 13.1 was announced long time ago, long before Leap announcement

That's not the problem - something like distribution building is better taught hands on anyhow, and our existing maintainers have volunteered to mentor those interested

I missed that. Is it necessary to keep 13.1?

...

it's what is discussed here, only for 13.1, no reason to start again a 32/64 war... Leap 64 bits is the obvious successor, but may be later

Yes, but Axel is pushing for a broadening of scope, encouraging repo maintainers to do extra work to keep maintaining their repos for 13.1 after the end of 13.1's official support...

and I'm pointing out that it's easier said, than done, and trying to give Axel and everyone else the background information why that is a lot of work, possible more than Axel realised before he made his request :)

yes. This is why I think useful to discuss this now and to ask people what exact use case they have. I have no interest of keeping 13.1 (nor 13.2, by the way) on my desktop machine. I probably still have 12.3 on some (unused) partition and will go to Leap sometime soon. I don't install other thing on 64 bits machines right now. but the remote server is an other problem, and other people have certainly other problems. We can discuss them and see solutions sincerely jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Dne 12.12.2015 v 20:50 Felix Miata napsal(a):

jdd composed on 2015-12-12 20:29 (UTC+0100):

...

Richard Brown composed:

...

...

Evergreen/13.1 a little peculiar, as 13.2 will almost certainly be around for longer.

...

yes but 13.1 was announced long time ago, long before Leap announcement

And long before openSUSE announced it would become the first major FOSS distro to terminate 32bit. Meanwhile, the latest Debian release offers both 32 bit and 5 years of support. Is there somebody paying people to provide 32 bit support there? How much extra effort is required provide 32 in conjunction with 64?

I believe that this was discussed already very extensively at opensuse-factory mailing list few months ago (and you participated in this discussion) so I don't see point in reviving this discussion here: issue is not amount of effort but lack of people who are both knowledgeable enough and willing to spend their time supporting 32bit. Furthermore comparing openSUSE to Debian is misleading given that both distributions are following different release models and target audience is different. Cheers Martin Pluskal

Morning, On 13 December 2015 at 13:47, Axel Braun wrote:

Morning all,

to shorten and summarize the discussion....

Am Samstag, 12. Dezember 2015, 19:08:36 schrieb Richard Brown:

...

...

it's what is discussed here, only for 13.1, no reason to start again a 32/64 war... Leap 64 bits is the obvious successor, but may be later

Yes, but Axel is pushing for a broadening of scope, encouraging repo maintainers to do extra work to keep maintaining their repos for 13.1 after the end of 13.1's official support...

First of all I'm asking not to remove 13.1 as repo - whether the build target is called 13.1 or Evergreen, I honestly dont care. (in the larger context, if 13.1 is the last evergreen as mentioned here, it would not make sence the have a separate Evergreen target)

...

and I'm pointing out that it's easier said, than done, and trying to give Axel and everyone else the background information why that is a lot of work, possible more than Axel realised before he made his request

Wolfgang and his team did an excellent job, and I'm confident they will continue to do so.

Please be confident that they will only do it until November 2016. Wolfgang has made things quite clear that he will NOT be doing it after that date, and has given the strong impression that he is only doing it upto that date out of his feelings of obligation based on his previous statements.

What really the end of lifecycle for 13.1 will be - no one knows yet (patches for 11.4 are still accepted).

I know that Evergreen 13.1 will die in November 2016 unless other people step in to do the work which Wolfgang is currently doing

But we should not give away tons of packages by just removing 13.1 from the repos. (IMO, that was always the weakness in Evergreen)

Why not? The openSUSE project produces software which is _maintained_ and _supported_. If maintainers can no longer maintain or support versions for 13.1, they shouldn't feel obligated to continue to do so. If we wanted them to support everything forever, we'd have support periods of forever...

As we saw from the discussion, there is a need to keep the 32bit release alive, and not everyone can or will uprade the hardware. New 64 bit hardware is always more expensive that already paid 32 bit hardware, not even considering resource usage.

The clear definition of need is meaningless if no one is willing to do it - Those who do, decide. And I'm still waiting to see people step up to make a 32-bit port of Leap. We have ARM and PPC ports, but no x86-32bit. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

On 14 December 2015 at 07:51, Michal Kubecek wrote:

On Sunday 13 of December 2015 15:38:20 Richard Brown wrote:

...

Please be confident that they will only do it until November 2016. Wolfgang has made things quite clear that he will NOT be doing it after that date, and has given the strong impression that he is only doing it upto that date out of his feelings of obligation based on his previous statements.

Can you share a reference? Last thing I've seen from him on the topic was this:

1. Do we want to do 13.1 longer as originally announced (November 2016)?

I wouldn't promise anything else right now myself. We have to see the level of contribution to Evergreen/13.1 first.

on November 12. That's very different from what you claim.

I'll quote this all in chronological order == Wolfgang announcing Evergreen 13.1 in 2013 == On 26 August 2013 at 11:34, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:

Hello,

The openSUSE Evergreen team would like to announce that openSUSE 13.1 will be the next Evergreen release. This means that openSUSE 13.1 will continue to be supplied with security updates and important bugfixes until it has had a total life time of at least three years.

13.1 was released in November 2013. 'total life time of at least three years' would be November 2016 == Wolfgang when discussing the idea of Leap == On 1 May 2015 at 23:26, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:

So indeed the plan currently is unchanged from Evergreen perspective. But then again, the outcome of all this discussion and new movement will probably have a direct impact on openSUSE 13.1 Evergreen.

Because in case openSUSE really moves to a longer maintained release with a SLES base the extra Evergreen project might not be required anymore. So let's imagine we would decide (and get delivered) an openSUSE 13.3 with a SLES base which is maintained by SUSE and the openSUSE community for 3 years (at least) it could happen that next Evergreen would be maintained for a shorter time with a recommendation to update to 13.3 and go from there. So basically if the goals of Evergreen are finally delivered by openSUSE next it's probably not required anymore. (Or said differently: Evergreen project and openSUSE could directly join forces with SUSE to deliver a distro which would count as LTS.) But the Evergreen discussion can really start only after the openSUSE vision is clear and for the time being in case required Evergreen will eventually start with 13.1 maintenance.

On 9 May 2015 at 19:10, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:

In a perfect world we probably want three distributions: Tumbleweed openSUSE as of today/yesterday openSUSE "LTS"

At least I would want this (I could live w/o Tumbleweed actually).

But this is totally out of the scope of we can maintain at the moment. (Actually not that totally because with Evergreen we have such a thing but it suffers from too few contributors.)

...

Some people mentioned Evergreen. Why not think about using the man power going into evergreen (that AFAIK is a user driven group effort) for this LTS release. But make it 'more official'?

as Greg (and myself earlier) pointed out, Evergreen has very limited manpower. But indeed we are watching closely (and I'm participating in) the discussion since the outcome will directly affect the future of Evergreen. As we are all volunteers and have our own requirements currently bundled in Evergreen we most likely will join forces for creating a different kind of openSUSE _if_ it fulfills our needs. Richard's proposal comes pretty close to mine at least. A lot of details to be sorted out though.

== Wolfgang clarifying things in November == On 16 November 2015 at 21:21, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:

The lifetimes given on that page (November 2016) is what was agreed in the core Evergreen team quite some time ago. This is pretty much a commitment we agreed on.

13.1 is currently committed until November 2016 (3 years). The Evergreen project always aimed at a minimal lifetime of three years in total. The decision to "only" do the three years was based on the fact that we never had to commit anything like this so long time in advance. So the current committed lifetime was set to a minimum. The real lifetime now will depend on the interests of contributors. We already got indications that kernel maintenance could be done for a longer time. To commit to a longer lifetime at this moment I'd like to hear at least 2-3 trusted people to step up saying they'll keep it running for a certain timeframe.

This might be true. Still what Richard wrote is true. I'll and I have put some energy into making Leap a viable replacement for Evergreen. For my own usecase this goal is achieved. In contrast to my earlier plans I'll now migrate everything to 42.1 instead of 13.1 since I do not need any 32bit system anymore. I'll stick to my earlier commitment and will do what is needed to deliver on 13.1 but do not expect that much energy from myself beyond this commitment. But this is not a problem because it seems there is so much demand on 32bit support that there must be many people willing to help us with that. And I'm happy to give people all information required to maintain Evergreen. I even will help and most likely contribute for my set of packages I'm maintainer for in any case.

NOBODY monitors 11.4 packages for security issues anymore. Some people might still submit single pieces but 11.4 has to be taken as vulnerable by default meanwhile. This is the big difference betweenn "accepting contributions" and "someone is actively checking every publically announced security issue and checks if 11.4 is affected and eventually fixes it".

The problem with all that is: There was a plan. And this plan was announced long ago. Honestly personally I find it more important to stick to that plan were people are counting on instead switching plans now.

So my opinion: We will follow the plan and the given commitments. If people are stepping up to make 13.2 an Evergreen release, that is perfectly fine. In the beginning we had two subsequent streams as well. It's not doubling the efforts in most cases. (Sometimes it might.)

A simple summary of all I have written above: Just find the people joining the Evergreen effort interested in 13.2 or 13.1 and then we can do a replanning. Feel free to find volunteers in the community and we'll make it work.

And as this is a huge pile of quotes let me extract the most important part again for clarification On 16 November 2015 at 21:21, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:

I'll stick to my earlier commitment and will do what is needed to deliver on 13.1 but do not expect that much energy from myself beyond this commitment.

I have also spoken to Wolfgang directly, and I am confident that he has no intention of supporting Evergreen beyond the announced supported timeframe

All the time people complain about the lack of active contributors. And then when a group of people makes the effort and contribute, openSUSE Board chairman goes a long way to actively discourage potential users and contributors of the project. I find such approach really disturbing.

I would prefer the former - and I strongly hope that the views presented by Richard Brown in this discussion are only his personal and do not represent the official position of openSUSE project.

The views I am presenting are nothing more then the concise repetition of the currently stated decisions by the established contributors to the Evergreen project My role as a part of the openSUSE Board gives me the responsibility of "Facilitating communication with all areas of the community" That is precisely what I am doing here - making it clear that with Wolfgang's currently stated position the Evergreen project is unlikely to continue without finding new contributors to replace him Don't shoot the messenger, and as you clearly didn't know about this situation, maybe your energies would be better spent in a direction other than criticising me for doing my job? :) Regards, Richard -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

On 14 December 2015 at 10:29, jdd wrote:

Le 14/12/2015 10:21, Richard Brown a écrit :

...

That is precisely what I am doing here - making it clear that with Wolfgang's currently stated position the Evergreen project is unlikely to continue without finding new contributors to replace him

why can't Wolfgang answer himself?

He can - but I think it's unreasonable to expect Wolfgang (or anyone) to pay attention to absolutely every thread in every list and respond promptly.. I imagine he just hasn't noticed this thread then..so let's ping him Wolfgang, do you have any intention of continuing Evergreen after November 2016? Are you still looking for replacement contributors as you were a few weeks ago?

who can know what volunteer will come if encouraged?

Yes, but why do I (or Wolfgang for that matter) have to be the one encouraging them? In my case, I think Evergreen is effectively replaced by Leap. I do not feel sufficient justification to continue Evergreen so I am not the right person to encourage anyone to do anything. Based on Wolfgangs statement on the 16th Nov that seems to be how he feels too, although clearly he leaves the door open for others to step in and has offered to help teach them.

I have seen the original post as a call for participation, not for Evergreen bashing...

I am not Evergreen 'bashing', but it's important that this project makes decisions based on the realities of our contributors and their decisions Pretending Evergreen currently has a stable future beyond the date of November 2016 would be a farcical fantasy Given this thread was encouraging more work from a great many more maintainers than just the 'core' Evergreen team, I think it's important to make the situation as it stands today very clear. Pretending things are different would just mean a much bigger mess a year from now when it would be too late to do anything about it But if people want Evergreen to last longer than November 2016, they need to do the work, now. They need to step up, take up Wolfgangs offer and learn from him, then make clear public statements about how long they intend to support Evergreen. Until then, the stated, and expected, end date of Evergreen is November 2016. It's really that simple, I understand why people may not like it, but that's not my fault and it's fully within the power of others to change it. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

On 14 December 2015 at 11:40, jdd wrote:

...

I am not Evergreen 'bashing', but it's important that this project makes decisions based on the realities of our contributors and their decisions

every contributor can talk here

Yup, but if every contributor did talk everywhere, then the Board wouldn't need to have 'Facilitate communication' under it's list of responsibilities.

...

Given this thread was encouraging more work from a great many more maintainers than just the 'core' Evergreen team, I think it's important to make the situation as it stands today very clear.

is that not the exact meaning of "discouraging"?

Realities like "Evergreen has no one maintaining it after November 2016" may be discouraging, but they're important to be aware of, accept, and then resolve The Project is never going to succeed if we close our eyes and pretend things are different from they are. Ignorance may be bliss, but contributions can only exist when people know they can be done. And so, cycling back to Axel's original post I do not see the point of discussing broad support for Evergreen across many additional repositories when the expected end of life of Evergreen is in November 2016 This isn't 'bashing' - if Evergreen had people standing up and saying 'yes, we have done our homework and we're dedicated to supporting Evergreen until 2017 and beyond' then believe me, I'd repeating that loudly and making sure maintainers consider that when deciding what build targets to include in their projects But that's not the case..and I think we'd all agree it's better for the Project to make decisions based on how things are, not how we'd like them to be -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Hi, Am 14.12.2015 um 10:44 schrieb Richard Brown:

On 14 December 2015 at 10:29, jdd wrote:

...

Le 14/12/2015 10:21, Richard Brown a écrit :

...

That is precisely what I am doing here - making it clear that with Wolfgang's currently stated position the Evergreen project is unlikely to continue without finding new contributors to replace him

why can't Wolfgang answer himself?

He can - but I think it's unreasonable to expect Wolfgang (or anyone) to pay attention to absolutely every thread in every list and respond promptly.. I imagine he just hasn't noticed this thread then..so let's ping him

It's like year end's busyness or something like that ;-) I followed the thread a bit but haven't had time nor wanted to repeat myself. So this mail might be less diplomatic as usual from my side.

Wolfgang, do you have any intention of continuing Evergreen after November 2016?

My very own situation: Compared to 11.4 I'm not using 13.1 myself anymore because Leap came up. I gave my word to the initial plan for 13.1 Evergreen and plan to deliver on it as good as possible although the time have left for fun projects like these is far less than in the past. I will still be around even after November 2016 but as can be foreseen by now I'm not taking the ownership and responsibility afterwards.

Are you still looking for replacement contributors as you were a few weeks ago?

First of all I'm looking for general contributors ;-) But speaking for 13.1 starting November 2016 if there is interest I would expect that someone will take over ownership and I'll help as much as I can to make this possible.

...

who can know what volunteer will come if encouraged?

Yes, but why do I (or Wolfgang for that matter) have to be the one encouraging them?

In my case, I think Evergreen is effectively replaced by Leap. I do not feel sufficient justification to continue Evergreen so I am not the right person to encourage anyone to do anything.

Based on Wolfgangs statement on the 16th Nov that seems to be how he feels too, although clearly he leaves the door open for others to step in and has offered to help teach them.

I'm not a marketing person and I certainly will not throw my energy in trying to encourage people. But I'm also not irreplaceable at all. I'm not sure what people expect. It does not help to send mails in my direction asking to extend Evergreen's lifetime just because. I mean it's nice that people find our work useful but it has certainly limits. I always wanted to keep out any commercial discussion here but given the expectations some people throw in I'd like to make this clear: I did Evergreen because I needed it myself and I wanted to concentrate all the spread efforts into one common project to ease the pain for everyone who had the same issues as I had. It was planned as and it always was community effort. What I read now everywhere is that people almost demand something. So really. There must be people inbetween the ones demanding longer support who are able to do the work technically. Guys, it's not that hard. Take responsibility for something (or actually pay someone to do it for you).

Pretending Evergreen currently has a stable future beyond the date of November 2016 would be a farcical fantasy

I wouldn't see it that pessimistic but yes, people need to step up if they want to continue afterwards.

Given this thread was encouraging more work from a great many more maintainers than just the 'core' Evergreen team, I think it's important to make the situation as it stands today very clear.

Keeping repositories for 13.1 is something which would certainly be nice. What I do not want to see is that OBS admins filing automated repository delete requests for 13.1 because it's "not maintained" anymore. But I think this is not too much asked? For all the others I hope that maintainers make a reasonable choice about 13.1 support. I have no right at all to tell people what to do. The same way as others do not have the right to tell me what to do.

But if people want Evergreen to last longer than November 2016, they need to do the work, now. They need to step up, take up Wolfgangs offer and learn from him, then make clear public statements about how long they intend to support Evergreen. Until then, the stated, and expected, end date of Evergreen is November 2016.

It's really that simple, I understand why people may not like it, but that's not my fault and it's fully within the power of others to change it.

Correct summary. Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

On Monday 14 December 2015 12:26:24 Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:

Keeping repositories for 13.1 is something which would certainly be nice. What I do not want to see is that OBS admins filing automated repository delete requests for 13.1 because it's "not maintained" anymore. But I think this is not too much asked? For all the others I hope that maintainers make a reasonable choice about 13.1 support. I have no right at all to tell people what to do. The same way as others do not have the right to tell me what to do.

I think this is the crucial point here. It doesn't look like there is a lot of momentum right now to keep 13.1 alive as Evergreen beyond the announced date of November of 2016, but this is still a year to go, and so it would be great, if we can keep it working as good as we can at least until then. There are still users who depend on it. So I would strongly support what Wolfgang said above. Please don't automatically delete repos for 13.1 or stop building for it, because you assume it's not maintained anymore. I understand that if it's an effort to keep building things for 13.1, it might not be worth it, and that's something for maintainers to decide. Fortunately the build service gives us the opportunity to easily build for many distributions, and it gives users the choice of a lot of software, even if it's not part of the official core repositories. This is one of our strengths. Let's make good use of it. -- Cornelius Schumacher -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:

What I read now everywhere is that people almost demand something.

Hi Wolfgang, You really should take that as a big compliment. It means people have grown dependent. They need & want Evergreen. Well done to you and the rest of the Evergreen team. /Per -- Per Jessen, Zürich (0.4°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - your free DNS host, made in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

On Monday 14 of December 2015 10:21:19 Richard Brown wrote:

On 14 December 2015 at 07:51, Michal Kubecek wrote:

...

All the time people complain about the lack of active contributors. And then when a group of people makes the effort and contribute, openSUSE Board chairman goes a long way to actively discourage potential users and contributors of the project. I find such approach really disturbing.

I would prefer the former - and I strongly hope that the views presented by Richard Brown in this discussion are only his personal and do not represent the official position of openSUSE project.

The views I am presenting are nothing more then the concise repetition of the currently stated decisions by the established contributors to the Evergreen project ... Don't shoot the messenger, and as you clearly didn't know about this situation

The quotes you presented only confirm that what you wrote is your personal interpretation and the actual situation is different. The future of Evergreen 13.1 after November 2016 is still open and depends on contributors joining the effort. Statements like "There will be no Evergreen 13.1 after November 2016." from someone in your position can be extremely harmful. I understand that you would prefer everyone moving to Tumbleweed or at least (latest) Leap - but you should restrain yourself from abusing your role to actively discourage people from participating in projects just because they are incompatible with your personal views and wishes. With power, responsibility comes - and Board chairman should be responsible enough to restrain oneself from this kind of manipulation.

maybe your energies would be better spent in a direction other than criticising me for doing my job? :)

As long as I'm concerned about _how_ you are doing your job, I'm going to criticize it. And given the way you are communicating recently, I'm concerned a lot. So I'm going to criticize you, learn to live with it. Or, better, try to learn from the feedback you get. Michal Kubeček -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

On 14/12/15 21:07, Richard Brown wrote:

On 14 December 2015 at 10:53, Michal Kubecek wrote:

...

On Monday 14 of December 2015 10:21:19 Richard Brown wrote:

...

On 14 December 2015 at 07:51, Michal Kubecek wrote: [pruned]

...

...

Don't shoot the messenger, and as you clearly didn't know about this situation The quotes you presented only confirm that what you wrote is your

... personal interpretation and the actual situation is different. The future of Evergreen 13.1 after November 2016 is still open and depends on contributors joining the effort. Statements like "There will be no Evergreen 13.1 after November 2016." from someone in your position can be extremely harmful. I said, and I quote from my mail from 19 hours ago

"I know that Evergreen 13.1 will die in November 2016 unless other people step in to do the work which Wolfgang is currently doing"

...

I understand that you would prefer everyone moving to Tumbleweed or at least (latest) Leap - but you should restrain yourself from abusing your role to actively discourage people from participating in projects just because they are incompatible with your personal views and wishes. With power, responsibility comes - and Board chairman should be responsible enough to restrain oneself from this kind of manipulation. My responsibilities includes supporting and communicating the decisions made by this community

Right now, the decisions made by our contributors, will lead to Evergreen ending on November 2016

I am in no position to challenge that, and yes, I have no interest myself in doing anything about that..if I did, I would be volunteering to help

If people want to change things, they can, I and no one else can stop them, but they need to understand what the current situation is..and that is what I have done here

I don't see how I could do it any differently

Being silent would be unhelpful - Axel and others would continue under the impression that Evergreen has a likelihood of continuing after November 2016.

Encouraging others to step in would be dishonest - It goes against what I think is best for the Project

[pruned] quote It goes against what I think is best for the Project unquote And there's the rub. You are not elected by the Community members to the Board. You are an unelected appointee by SUSE to the OpenSUSE Community Board and as such represent in the first instance SUSE's interests. There are other Board members who are elected, and have been elected, and yet you seem to have usurped the task of them speaking for themselves. Do you speak on all of their behalves? I (?we) do not know. If it is the case -- that you have been chosen to speak on all their behalves -- then it would be very nice to know that this is the case and you should have begun by stating -- or at this stage, which is not too late, to advise here -- that you speak on behalf of all the members of the Board. However, if I recall correctly, you did mention in one of your posts that you were expressing your own opinion - and on matters which appear to be out of your main sphere of responsibility (apart that is from representing SUSE's interests): the latest wiki (https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board) states that you are, ".... involved as a maintainer of GNOME and the openSUSE branding packages, and working on packaging Spacewalk for openSUSE. ". While you are quite welcome to express your opinions as an ordinary user of openSUSE you nevertheless have referred to yourself as the chairman of the Board (see above) which throws a totally different perspective on what you express and therefore what people conclude from your utterings. Now, I do not have an intimate -- or otherwise -- knowledge of the workings of openSUSE or its relationship with SUSE and how the distro is "put together" and to date I, or anyone else I suspect, have not had to ask about this relationship because the progress of openSUSE has been harmonious until now, but to me it seems that your job description with SUSE, that of being employed as SUSE's "QA Engineer", confines you to worrying about quality assurance -- the pre-activity to quality control -- but not to how, say, repositories are managed and whether openSUSE 13.2 should be followed by openSUSE 13.3 or whether fonts used in openSUSE should be XXXX or YYYY. To me the wherefore of, say, how repositories should be managed is the responsibility of Stephan Kulow and Stephan alone. What fonts should be used in openSUSE is a matter for the Community to decide and not for SUSE's appointee to the Board to waste time on as the "QA engineer". The above, of course, is based on my own experience gained some years ago when working with computer programmers and computer programs designed to achieve an effective and gainful result but things may have changed in most recent years and so I can only state that what I just expressed is my opinion and is not meant to be offensive, discourteous, impertinent, rude or offending. BC -- Using openSUSE 13.2, KDE 4.14.9 & kernel 4.3.2-1 on a system with- AMD FX 8-core 3.6/4.2GHz processor 16GB PC14900/1866MHz Quad Channel RAM Gigabyte AMD3+ m/board; Gigabyte nVidia GTX660 GPU -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

On 16/12/15 01:01, Richard Brown wrote:

On 15 December 2015 at 14:09, Basil Chupin wrote:

...

[pruned]

quote

It goes against what I think is best for the Project

unquote

And there's the rub.

You are not elected by the Community members to the Board.

You are an unelected appointee by SUSE to the OpenSUSE Community Board and as such represent in the first instance SUSE's interests. You are correct that I am appointed to my position as Chairman of the openSUSE Board by SUSE

But you seem to forget the fact that I was an elected member of the Board since 2013 - first stepping in after Pascal stepped down as the next highest candidate in the previous elections, then directly elected to the Board by the community at the end of 2013.

Thank you for this piece of information. Unfortunately I have never heard of you being an elected member of the Board until you just mentioned it. (Goes to show what an impact your presence caused in that period :-) .)

My 'interests' are, have been, and will continue to be, first and foremost openSUSEs.

My role as Chairman includes communicating those interests to SUSE, and communicating SUSE's interests to the community.

Beyond that, I'm still a contributor to this project with 10 years of experience with this project, and I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to contribute in all the ways available to me.

But of course.

There are other Board members who are elected, and have been elected, and yet you seem to have usurped the task of them speaking for themselves. Do you speak on all of their behalves? I (?we) do not know. If it is the case -- that you have been chosen to speak on all their behalves -- then it would be very nice to know that this is the case and you should have begun by stating -- or at this stage, which is not too late, to advise here -- that you speak on behalf of all the members of the Board. When I speak on behalf of the openSUSE Board, I make sure my signature says 'on behalf of the openSUSE Board'

When I speak 'as Chairman' (ie. when I am conveying SUSE's interests in my formal role as Chairman), I make sure my email says 'Chairman of the openSUSE Board'

So, as Chairman of the Board you convey SUSE's interests re openSUSE. Whether or not you have a signature at the end of your message is immaterial -- and besides, I at least, have never seen such a signature at the end of your posts. But, again, this is immaterial.

Otherwise, I'm Richard, the openSUSE contributor.

Right ... "... Richard, the openSUSE contributor".

However, if I recall correctly, you did mention in one of your posts that you were expressing your own opinion - and on matters which appear to be out of your main sphere of responsibility (apart that is from representing SUSE's interests): the latest wiki (https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board) states that you are, ".... involved as a maintainer of GNOME and the openSUSE branding packages, and working on packaging Spacewalk for openSUSE. ".

While you are quite welcome to express your opinions as an ordinary user of openSUSE you nevertheless have referred to yourself as the chairman of the Board (see above) which throws a totally different perspective on what you express and therefore what people conclude from your utterings. If people are only allowed to talk about what is 'among their main sphere of responsibility'.. then I think there would be a dramatically reduced selection of topics which you would be entitled to talk about Basil..

I'm a contributor, I'm interested in the future of this Project and a great many aspects of it.. It's probably one reason why the community elected me to the Board and why SUSE appointed me as Chairman

Ah, the old "I'm a contributor but you are not" crap argument. I am a USER, repeat a USER, and therefore a contributor to the project. For whom are people spending their time programming openSUSE? Have a guess.... If you say, "For openSUSE users who then check it out to see if what it contains is good enough to be used in the commercial version called SLE" then you get a cigar; but if you don't then you back to the back of the dummies queue. As a USER I don't want to see my preferred operating system go down the proverbial gurgler just because some programmer(s) isn't able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I work hard to coordinate and collaborate with those already working in those areas, learn from them, try to help them out (like I did in this thread conveying Wolfgangs intention to give up Ownership of Evergreen in November). I'd like to see more community members take a similar approach, rather than the somewhat limiting mindset of 'oh, someone else is already taking care of/will take care of that'

I will repeat what I stated earlier: this doesn't appear to have been a problem in the past when everyone worked harmoniously with everyone else.

Now, I do not have an intimate -- or otherwise -- knowledge of the workings of openSUSE or its relationship with SUSE and how the distro is "put together" and to date I, or anyone else I suspect, have not had to ask about this relationship because the progress of openSUSE has been harmonious until now, but to me it seems that your job description with SUSE, that of being employed as SUSE's "QA Engineer", confines you to worrying about quality assurance -- the pre-activity to quality control -- but not to how, say, repositories are managed and whether openSUSE 13.2 should be followed by openSUSE 13.3 or whether fonts used in openSUSE should be XXXX or YYYY. My job as QA Engineer at SUSE has little to do with my contributions to openSUSE - besides that my experience in openSUSE has helped me push for adoption of openQA inside SUSE for testing of SLE, which is now leading to an increase in contributions from SUSE to openQA, which is also benefiting openSUSE

Since joining SUSE 2 years ago, as a QA Engineer, I have had the pleasure of learning a LOT about how a distribution is put together. I don't consider myself an 'expert' on the topic, but I do consider myself knowledgeable, and I don't see any reason why I should keep that knowledge to myself just because I learnt it working for SUSE.

Besides that, my work on filing bugs, dealing with the branding package, helping the GNOME team, attempting (and failing) to package Spacewalk were all started long before I joined SUSE 2 years ago.

And I intend to continue contributing in as many different means as I can..just last week for example me and a few others were building JeOS images for Leap..

I suggest that you make a copy of this to be included in your CV to be used at some later date -- "By Christ that sounds impressive!" as a friend of mine (an estate agent) would say when reading the description of a property which was advertised for sale :-) .

To me the wherefore of, say, how repositories should be managed is the responsibility of Stephan Kulow and Stephan alone. Stephan Kulow is the Release Manager of openSUSE. He has broad responsibilities, but I do not think they extend to the Build Targets of Repositories managed by other Teams.

Ahem... You "... do not think ..." that Stephan's responsibilities extend to Build Targets of Repositories?! Don't you think that it is about time that you found out what his responsibilities are? Afterall, you have been with SUSE for some 2 years now, as you state above -- not to mention that you are also the *Chairman* of the Board? (Sheesh! SUSE owners appointed you as Chairman and you don't even know what Stephan's responsibilities are?! Sorry, but I sometimes fear for the future of openSUSE :'( .) I am sorry for pointing this out but, just as you just stated what you did, others are quite in their rights to come to the conclusion that YOU don't have a bloody clue what YOUR job is all about. See my point or not?

This kind of thing can, and will always be, down to the individual choices of the maintainers in question - but as a Project we can talk about such things here, because it's a good place to debate, get a feel for the Projects opinion, consider a broader perspective..and maybe even form consensuses out of it

Debating and exchanging ideas is always most helpful. Doing so results in being educated.

What fonts should be used in openSUSE is a matter for the Community to decide and not for SUSE's appointee to the Board to waste time on as the "QA engineer". It's a good thing I didn't work on the Fonts topic during my work hours then, isn't it?

A silly question, wot? How would I, or anyone, know whether you did or did not work on them when you were at work? But I -- and I suspect others -- was confronted -- when I have never had heard of you -- by your "arguments" for your selection of fonts for Leap of Faith. Who had given a tinker's cuss about the fonts until your posts at that time? Looking up the Wikipedia about fonts produced results which showed that fonts were split -- for want of a better description -- into 2 groups: those which worked fine in newspaper/printed hardcopy and those which were to be reproduced on a computer screen. But then suddenly along came Richard with his "selection"....... But anyway.....

What about all the other people (who happen to work for SUSE or not) who actually finished the Font revamp after I started the discussion?

OK, I'll bite. What about them?

The community did decide, and I'm part of that community; Or is your intention to suggest I should contribute to the openSUSE Project less now that I happen to work for SUSE than I have for the past 10 years?

The immediate quote which comes to mind here is, "You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment.", Francis Urquhart, _House of Cards_, but no, stating this quote out loud would be ingenuous of me. I am a member of the BROADER Community and not one of the members of the pseudo "community" 'club' artificially created for the purposes of simply having its members being allowed to vote for Board members and, therefore, have no influence over what the latter's preferences are. But as for me, personally, I would prefer you to stay as you seem to have taken onboard a few comments expressed in this thread -- not to mention that life may prove dull without you :-) .

The above, of course, is based on my own experience gained some years ago when working with computer programmers and computer programs designed to achieve an effective and gainful result but things may have changed in most recent years and so I can only state that what I just expressed is my opinion and is not meant to be offensive, discourteous, impertinent, rude or offending. And of course, you're entitled to your opinion, and perhaps with this additional information you realise that much of what you say seems to be based on incorrect information or assumptions.

Every day of my life is a new learning experience and which I always looks forward to when I wake in the morning. To this point I have learnt a few things and considering that enough time has passed (4 days) since my response for people to comment on what has been written in this thread I find that the only succinct statement was made 4 days ago by Michal Kubecek: quote As long as I'm concerned about _how_ you are doing your job, I'm going to criticize it. And given the way you are communicating recently, I'm concerned a lot. So I'm going to criticize you, learn to live with it. Or, better, try to learn from the feedback you get. unquote Interesting that none of your Board member colleagues have bothered to comment -- but then it is an election period afterall. I have also been asked in private messages why am I wasting my time commenting on what you write. An excellent question to which my answer would have to be: there are some matters which just have to be commented on :-) . But having considered those privately expressed comments I find that there is little or no profit in continuing with commenting. BC -- Using openSUSE 13.2, KDE 4.14.9 & kernel 4.3.3-2 on a system with- AMD FX 8-core 3.6/4.2GHz processor 16GB PC14900/1866MHz Quad Channel RAM Gigabyte AMD3+ m/board; Gigabyte nVidia GTX660 GPU -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

On 18 December 2015 at 10:54, Basil Chupin wrote:

[stuff]

Unfortunately I have never heard of you being an elected member of the Board until you just mentioned it. (Goes to show what an impact your presence caused in that period :-) .)

http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2013-03/msg00020.html https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board_election_2013_platform_rbrownccb http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2013-12/msg00337.html http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/richard-brown-to-chair-opensuse-proj... I think the fact you had not heard of me says more about your knowledge, involvement and engagement with the openSUSE Project and less about my own impact.

So, as Chairman of the Board you convey SUSE's interests re openSUSE.

Whether or not you have a signature at the end of your message is immaterial -- and besides, I at least, have never seen such a signature at the end of your posts. But, again, this is immaterial.

Not surprising, I use it sparingly, because most of the time I'm talking as an interested and involved community member, not as the formal mouthpiece of SUSE.

...

However, if I recall correctly, you did mention in one of your posts that you were expressing your own opinion - and on matters which appear to be out of your main sphere of responsibility (apart that is from representing SUSE's interests): the latest wiki (https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board) states that you are, ".... involved as a maintainer of GNOME and the openSUSE branding packages, and working on packaging Spacewalk for openSUSE. ".

While you are quite welcome to express your opinions as an ordinary user of openSUSE you nevertheless have referred to yourself as the chairman of the Board (see above) which throws a totally different perspective on what you express and therefore what people conclude from your utterings. If people are only allowed to talk about what is 'among their main sphere of responsibility'.. then I think there would be a dramatically reduced selection of topics which you would be entitled to talk about Basil..

I'm a contributor, I'm interested in the future of this Project and a great many aspects of it.. It's probably one reason why the community elected me to the Board and why SUSE appointed me as Chairman

Ah, the old "I'm a contributor but you are not" crap argument.

I am a USER, repeat a USER, and therefore a contributor to the project.

For whom are people spending their time programming openSUSE? Have a guess....

If you say, "For openSUSE users who then check it out to see if what it contains is good enough to be used in the commercial version called SLE" then you get a cigar; but if you don't then you back to the back of the dummies queue.

As a USER I don't want to see my preferred operating system go down the proverbial gurgler just because some programmer(s) isn't able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Basil, you cannot have this argument both ways. If you want your "I am a USER, repeat a USER, and therefore a contributor" argument to be considered credible by anyone reading it, you shouldn't be voicing it after suggesting to me that I should only talk about issues which are in my "main sphere of responsibility". I expressed myself in the way I have to highlight the absurdity of your suggestion that I should only talk about areas of my responsibility, you're just adding to absurdity with your response here.

...

To me the wherefore of, say, how repositories should be managed is the responsibility of Stephan Kulow and Stephan alone. Stephan Kulow is the Release Manager of openSUSE. He has broad responsibilities, but I do not think they extend to the Build Targets of Repositories managed by other Teams.

Ahem... You "... do not think ..." that Stephan's responsibilities extend to Build Targets of Repositories?!

Don't you think that it is about time that you found out what his responsibilities are? Afterall, you have been with SUSE for some 2 years now, as you state above -- not to mention that you are also the *Chairman* of the Board?

(Sheesh! SUSE owners appointed you as Chairman and you don't even know what Stephan's responsibilities are?! Sorry, but I sometimes fear for the future of openSUSE :'( .)

I am sorry for pointing this out but, just as you just stated what you did, others are quite in their rights to come to the conclusion that YOU don't have a bloody clue what YOUR job is all about. See my point or not?

I learned a long time ago that it is more effective when talking in public about open source contributors who volunteer a significant proportion of their time, effort, and dedication to not be presumptive about what they are doing or what they want to be doing. Anyone in this project, regardless of employment status, can (through time, effort, and dedication) acquire broad roles and responsibilities in areas of interest to them. In such a circumstance, and especially as Chairman, it's a lot more sensible for me to talk about what I 'think' and how I 'see' things Making sweeping declarations of what I 'know' should be other peoples jobs is not a productive way of conducting oneself in an open source project.. on that note..you seem to think you *know* what my job entails..maybe you should *think* a little more?

Debating and exchanging ideas is always most helpful. Doing so results in being educated.

That's the idea, yes.

...

What fonts should be used in openSUSE is a matter for the Community to decide and not for SUSE's appointee to the Board to waste time on as the "QA engineer". It's a good thing I didn't work on the Fonts topic during my work hours then, isn't it?

A silly question, wot? How would I, or anyone, know whether you did or did not work on them when you were at work? But I -- and I suspect others -- was confronted -- when I have never had heard of you -- by your "arguments" for your selection of fonts for Leap of Faith.

I started a discussion by provided my reasoning and my suggestions as to how we could improve the Default Fonts in openSUSE. I think this is exactly how large changes are meant to be proposed and discussed.

Who had given a tinker's cuss about the fonts until your posts at that time?

I can think of dozens of people who directly spoke to me about the 'bad fonts' in openSUSE in IRC, various Social Media platforms, and face to face at conferences and press interviews. It's also a recurring topic that came up on various forums and mailinglists, which normally ended up with discussion about anti-aliasing and such, but I wanted to direct the conversation towards selecting a default set of fonts that reduced the need for such technical workarounds. I think the community has achieved that, even though..no, especially though, the fonts the community eventually chose were different than the ones I originally proposed.

...

What about all the other people (who happen to work for SUSE or not) who actually finished the Font revamp after I started the discussion?

OK, I'll bite. What about them?

They did more work than me and were the actual ones who actually implemented it in the packages, tested it, listened to feedback, tuned it, and continue to work on it.. I think you're not sufficiently respecting the work those others did to take my original font ideas and implement them effectively in our distributions.

...

The community did decide, and I'm part of that community; Or is your intention to suggest I should contribute to the openSUSE Project less now that I happen to work for SUSE than I have for the past 10 years?

The immediate quote which comes to mind here is, "You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment.", Francis Urquhart, _House of Cards_, but no, stating this quote out loud would be ingenuous of me.

I am a member of the BROADER Community and not one of the members of the pseudo "community" 'club' artificially created for the purposes of simply having its members being allowed to vote for Board members and, therefore, have no influence over what the latter's preferences are. But as for me, personally, I would prefer you to stay as you seem to have taken onboard a few comments expressed in this thread -- not to mention that life may prove dull without you :-) .

If you can quantify your contributions to the openSUSE Project in a way that the Membership Officials can confirm that those contributions are sustained and substantial, then you can become an openSUSE Member and have a more active involvement in the governance of this Project. Since it's formation 10 years ago, this Project has always been clear and open about it's Governance model, how it is based on established successes such as in GNOME. If you do not like it, then the best way of influencing it is by embracing it and changing it from the inside. Critique from the sidelines, no matter how loudly it is shouted, should not have the kind of impacts I think you want to achieve. I think you've been here long enough now that you should realise that. - Richard -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 00:09 +1100, Basil Chupin wrote:

You are not elected by the Community members to the Board.

You are an unelected appointee by SUSE to the OpenSUSE Community Board and as such represent in the first instance SUSE's interests.

There are other Board members who are elected, and have been elected, and yet you seem to have usurped the task of them speaking for themselves. Do you speak on all of their behalves? I (?we) do not know. If it is the case -- that you have been chosen to speak on all their behalves -- then it would be very nice to know that this is the case and you should have begun by stating -- or at this stage, which is not too late, to advise here -- that you speak on behalf of all the members of the Board.

I'm sorry, usually I stay out of the nonsense conversations, but I feel compelled to interject. 1. Every member of the openSUSE board is perfectly capable of putting their fingers to the keyboard, especially if they feel they've been improperly represented. We regularly hear from Andy Wafaa, Robert Schweikert, and Richard here. To that end, if Richard speaks "for the board" and no one else on the board objects, then _Richard speaks for the board_. 2. If you _really_ see a need to change things, you should put your efforts into a run for the board; seek a positive outlet instead of negative emails on an otherwise technical list. /me goes back to work... -- James Mason Technical Architect, Public Cloud openSUSE Member SUSE jmason@suse.com

On 12/15/2015 01:37 PM, jdd wrote:

Le 15/12/2015 17:25, James Mason a écrit :

...

2. If you _really_ see a need to change things, you should put your efforts into a run for the board;

sure, don't forget we are on election time :-).

Well Richard and Basil are both people with strong commitment, and I'm glad of this.

such discussion is often hard to follow, including for me.

May be it could be better to go back to the real subject: how to have an Evergreen distribution next month, for at least one year?

thanks jdd +1

-- Cheers! Roman -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

On 16/12/15 05:37, jdd wrote:

Le 15/12/2015 17:25, James Mason a écrit :

...

2. If you _really_ see a need to change things, you should put your efforts into a run for the board;

sure, don't forget we are on election time :-).

Well Richard and Basil are both people with strong commitment, and I'm glad of this.

such discussion is often hard to follow, including for me.

May be it could be better to go back to the real subject: how to have an Evergreen distribution next month, for at least one year?

thanks jdd

Look, I really do not know what this thing is about having 13.1 as an Evergreen. Apart from someone stating some time ago that 13.1 will be Evergreen, what reason is there REALLY for having 13.1 as an Evergreen? What is it about 13.1 which is so special? Is it to do with being 32-bit -- but 13.2 is 32-bit (and which is what I have "pushed" to become Evergreen")? Or is it simply that some people have taken onboard that someone said that 13.1 will be Evergreen and have installed it and so are now spitting the dummy because what they were told is now in jeopardy? They will have to upgrade sooner or later so what's the REAL complaint about this? Desktop or server is totally immaterial as far as 13.1 is concerned -- either one will HAVE to be replaced/upgraded. So what IS the big "thing" about 13.1 Evergreen? Educate me -- if not here then by private mail please. BC -- Using openSUSE 13.2, KDE 4.14.9 & kernel 4.3.3-2 on a system with- AMD FX 8-core 3.6/4.2GHz processor 16GB PC14900/1866MHz Quad Channel RAM Gigabyte AMD3+ m/board; Gigabyte nVidia GTX660 GPU -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

On 16/12/15 03:25, James Mason wrote:

On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 00:09 +1100, Basil Chupin wrote:

...

You are not elected by the Community members to the Board.

You are an unelected appointee by SUSE to the OpenSUSE Community Board and as such represent in the first instance SUSE's interests.

There are other Board members who are elected, and have been elected, and yet you seem to have usurped the task of them speaking for themselves. Do you speak on all of their behalves? I (?we) do not know. If it is the case -- that you have been chosen to speak on all their behalves -- then it would be very nice to know that this is the case and you should have begun by stating -- or at this stage, which is not too late, to advise here -- that you speak on behalf of all the members of the Board. I'm sorry, usually I stay out of the nonsense conversations, but I feel compelled to interject.

1. Every member of the openSUSE board is perfectly capable of putting their fingers to the keyboard, especially if they feel they've been improperly represented. We regularly hear from Andy Wafaa, Robert Schweikert, and Richard here. To that end, if Richard speaks "for the board" and no one else on the board objects, then _Richard speaks for the board_.

You are, of course, welcome to your assumption but you must take into consideration the SUBJECT about which what Andy or Robert, or anyone else of the Board, is posting. None have posted anything here so far dealing with this thread.

2. If you _really_ see a need to change things, you should put your efforts into a run for the board; seek a positive outlet instead of negative emails on an otherwise technical list.

I hope that it does not come as a great big shock to you but this not a *technical* list and so it is imprudent to try and hide behind this description. opensuse or opensuse-kde or opensuse-factory et al are technical lists -- but not this one.

/me goes back to work...

If you say so :-D . BC -- Using openSUSE 13.2, KDE 4.14.9 & kernel 4.3.3-2 on a system with- AMD FX 8-core 3.6/4.2GHz processor 16GB PC14900/1866MHz Quad Channel RAM Gigabyte AMD3+ m/board; Gigabyte nVidia GTX660 GPU -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Le 12/12/2015 18:53, jdd a écrit :

But it's why sharing zypper lr could make clear what repositories can

to be positive, my zypper lr: ks311900:~ # zypper lr # | Alias | Nom | Activé | Rafraîchir --+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+--------+----------- 1 | download.opensuse.org-13.1-non-oss | Dépôt de mises à jour (Non-OSS) | Oui | Oui 2 | download.opensuse.org-non-oss | Dépôt principal (NON-OSS) | Oui | Oui 3 | download.opensuse.org-oss | Dépôt principal (OSS) | Oui | Oui 4 | download.opensuse.org-update | Dépôt principal de mise à jour | Oui | Oui 5 | ftp.gwdg.de-suse | Packman Repository | Oui | Oui 6 | opensuse-guide.org-repo | libdvdcss repository | Oui | Oui 7 | owncloud | owncloud | Oui | Oui 8 | repo-update-non-oss | openSUSE-13.1-Update-Non-Oss | Oui | Oui I don't even know why I have libdvdcss, I need Packman but guess it's not a problem and need also probably owncloud, although I could manage owncloud myself, probably. jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Le 14/12/2015 07:55, Michal Kubecek a écrit :

Not really useful, I would say. If you want to share your repositories, I would rather suggest "zypper lr -u" or (better) "LANG=C zypper lr -u".

I don't see really the use of the -u, but sure LANG=C is a good idea. But, by the way I wanted only to give an example, to be continued only if necessary. The main goal is to show what repositories may have problem when upgrading. but do we want to really discuss Evergreen practical continuation, like I do, or discuss political interest like it started to be? thanks for your interest :-) jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Le 14/12/2015 09:27, Michal Kubecek a écrit :

I know what is "fb30" but for anyone else,

ok, I see mine is:

1 | download.opensuse.org-13.1-non-oss | Dépôt de mises à jour (Non-OSS) | Yes | Yes | http://download.opensuse.org/update/13.1-non-oss/ 2 | download.opensuse.org-non-oss | Dépôt principal (NON-OSS) | Yes | Yes | http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/13.1/repo/non-oss/ 3 | download.opensuse.org-oss | Dépôt principal (OSS) | Yes | Yes | http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/13.1/repo/oss/ 4 | download.opensuse.org-update | Dépôt principal de mise à jour | Yes | Yes | http://download.opensuse.org/update/13.1/ 5 | ftp.gwdg.de-suse | Packman Repository | Yes | Yes | http://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/linux/packman/suse/openSUSE_13.1/ 6 | opensuse-guide.org-repo | libdvdcss repository | Yes | Yes | http://opensuse-guide.org/repo/13.1/ 7 | owncloud | owncloud | Yes | Yes | http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/isv:/ownCloud:/community/openSUSE_... 8 | repo-update-non-oss | openSUSE-13.1-Update-Non-Oss | Yes | Yes | http://download.opensuse.org/update/13.1-non-oss/

the only non official repos I have are packman and owncloud jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

On Monday 14 of December 2015 11:01:08 Bruno Friedmann wrote:

The fact that Leap is here, change the game a bit. Hopefully.

It definitely does. However, I'm not really sure if it means there will be no need for Evergreen (or evergreen-like project) anymore. Actually, I'm much less convinced about that than I was when Leap was first announced. There are two reasons: 1. Looking at Leap 42.1, I'm afraid we gave up a bit too much to the temptation to throw newest possible versions of some packages. In particular, while I understand the reasons for kernel 4.1 and Plasma 5, the former is the reason why I would rather wait with installing it on my servers and the latter a reason why I'm not going to install it on important desktops anytime soon. 2. While in theory, "Leap 42" is going to be supported for quite long, in reality, there may be significant leaps between the point releases. For someone reluctant to upgrade a live production machine, say, from 42.1 to 42.2 without testing everything thoroughly, this would actually mean lifetime shorter than it used to be in the pre-Leap era. IMHO it's too early to say how much of a concern this is going to be; I believe we will be wiser once we see how 42.2 would turn out (if we are able to stay as conservative as LTS release deserves). So I believe it's too early for claims that with Leap, there is no more need for Evergreen or evergreen-like project. Michal Kubeček -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Hi, Am 14.12.2015 um 11:53 schrieb Michal Kubecek:

On Monday 14 of December 2015 11:01:08 Bruno Friedmann wrote:

...

The fact that Leap is here, change the game a bit. Hopefully.

It definitely does. However, I'm not really sure if it means there will be no need for Evergreen (or evergreen-like project) anymore. Actually, I'm much less convinced about that than I was when Leap was first announced. There are two reasons:

1. Looking at Leap 42.1, I'm afraid we gave up a bit too much to the temptation to throw newest possible versions of some packages. In particular, while I understand the reasons for kernel 4.1 and Plasma 5, the former is the reason why I would rather wait with installing it on my servers and the latter a reason why I'm not going to install it on important desktops anytime soon.

Plasma 5 is indeed a major thing. Thankfully I do not need it on the server.

2. While in theory, "Leap 42" is going to be supported for quite long, in reality, there may be significant leaps between the point releases. For someone reluctant to upgrade a live production machine, say, from 42.1 to 42.2 without testing everything thoroughly, this would actually mean lifetime shorter than it used to be in the pre-Leap era. IMHO it's too early to say how much of a concern this is going to be; I believe we will be wiser once we see how 42.2 would turn out (if we are able to stay as conservative as LTS release deserves).

The actual details of the non-leap jumps aka minor version upgrades will be interesting and only time will tell (and hopefully my contribution) how it'll look like exactly.

So I believe it's too early for claims that with Leap, there is no more need for Evergreen or evergreen-like project.

Yes, it's too early. And this also means that people wanting an answer right now are unlucky IMHO. Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

On Sat, 2015-12-12 at 13:50 +0100, Richard Brown wrote:

On 12 December 2015 at 12:40, jdd wrote:

...

Le 12/12/2015 12:08, Richard Brown a écrit :

...

- Evergreen 13.1 only has a planned support period of January 2016 to November 2016.

(I agree with the rest of your mail)

may be our work could be to make shift to Leap easier. I mean better doc, may be upgrade scripts (Wagon??).

Wagon was never supported for openSUSE and is no longer supported for SLE. It is also irrelevant as this discussion includes additional repositories, and wagon used to remove all repositories that weren't part of the main distribution :)

...

the problem is not upgrade but problems coming during upgrades, so if we can make this a bare minimum, we can go on.

for example, could we could collect the "zypper lr" of interested people, eventually build a common VirtualBox test appliance...

and write accurate doc of how to go from one to the other?

Adding repositories to your machine makes it in many respects 'unsupported' and 'unsupportable' - it adds complexity, that complexity makes it very hard to write accurate, meaningful documentation, because you can very easily add stuff to your system that would invalidate what is intended by the distribution

The issue is that there is useful software that is only available in repositories, and if I didn't have those I would probably be forced to switch back to Debian, and I'm not the only one. -- Stelian Ionescu a.k.a. fe[nl]ix Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.