On Mon, 2021-08-09 at 09:54 +0200, Syds Bearda wrote:
A first note before reading the rest. I’m not trying to pick a fight with you. I just disagree with you on this and want to make myself clear. Also I’m not standing by while I feel I’m being attacked on something I feel is helpful and has helped many people already.
On Mon, Aug 9, 2021, at 09:26, Richard Brown wrote:
On 9. Aug 2021, at 07:41, Syds Bearda
wrote: So this is the real issue. You assume that because I wrote something down you have to do work. While I already know you don’t do things you don’t want to, so what is your issue here? I’m the release manager for MicroOS
Okay, thank you for that. This is for real btw. I am for real grateful that you started MicroOS as I see great potential for it.
On a side note though. Who or where did you get appointed release manager for MicroOS. Was there an election or is this self appointed?
MicroOS started life as a SUSE-sponsored direct contribution to openSUSE alongside SUSE's development of the SUSE CaaSP (and now SLE Micro) commercial projects. My role as a contributor in this openSUSE side project was 'appointed' by the team/SUSE.
If you do write something down and declare it officially supported, I will have to do that work.
Where do I write officially supported. I never say that nor do I know what officially supported means in the case of MicroOS.
You put it in documentation that wants to be official, telling people what is the official way of doing things in openSUSE. "Officially supported" means aligned with the goals of the contributors to MicroOS. This means (ideally all of the below): - is tested - is managed as part of the MicroOS/Tumbleweed release process (ie. no third party repos) - is aligned with the types of bugs the contributors involved are willing to resolve your documentation for MicroOS does not comply with any one of those standards
Have you actually received bugs for it? Have I ever posted a bug for you on MicroOS?
MicroOS recieves a number of bugs that are out of intended scope of MicroOS - examples: https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1184385 https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1171177 https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1166157 https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1137460 MicroOS also recieves a number of bugs which clearly affects users but no one takes effort to fix or reply to - examples: https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1188957 https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1188110 https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1184411 https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1185647 both sets of examples above stand as justification for NOT broadening the scope of MicroOS further and not documenting unofficial/unsupported/unmaintained workflows. We have enough to keep us busy with what we are willing and able to support.
I will need to accept those pull requests to the core parts of the distro.
Yeah where we had discussions before and where you threatened to remove stuff you don’t use but I do, just because you don’t want more work. Which is a bully attitude to begin with.
Look at it from my point of view 1. I accepted something expanding the scope of MicroOS on the promise of a contributor (not you) that it would be supported and/or it wouldn't produce extra work for me. 2. Contributor dissapears/contributions dry up. That stuff becomes unmaintained. 3. You approach me, producing work for me (dealing with you is work, even when it's pleasent). 4. I am not willing, nor able to fix the thing, I don't use the thing, so the only option really available to me is to remove the thing given no one is there to maintain it and its producing more work for me. It's not bullying, it's actually long overdue and needed maintainance.
I will need to juggle the growing integration problems the more complex support base requires.
One of the absolute core points of MicroOS is that it has a narrower scope than the rest of Tumbleweed.
Are you the sole decider of this?
No. As described, MicroOS started as a SUSE-sponsored contribution to openSUSE, and the team includes people like Thorsten Kukuk (SUSE's MicroOS Architect, and my boss) who defined the original scope of MicroOS. Since MicroOS has been in openSUSE there has been some allowance of scope creep - for example the MicroOS Desktop is a clear example of a community contribution (me in my spare time) doing something way outside of the intended scope of MicroOS, over the objections of Thorsten. In the case of GNOME I think we can make an argument that it's been worth the effort, has gained additional contributors, does (slowly) move forward, even though we haven't made something good enough to get out of BETA yet. In the case of KDE, I have to admit Thorsten was utterly right and I should have listened to him and not allowed it to happen.
I’ve even suggested pattern changes in the beginning to remove certain suggested install packages from my manual. But that was shot down really strongly from you and made me realise my contributions are better with the manual and actually helping people when they have a question on telegram/ matrix and discord than going into discussions with you.
But are you really helping the MicroOS Project if you document things out of scope of what the MicroOS contributors are contributing? I'd argue it's more problematic than a help, while I do appreciate the thought.
Also do you realise I’m not the first person calling you out on your bully attitude King Richard?
If you haven't noticed already, I typically don't respond to any ML posts that resort to namecalling. I made an exception in this case. -- Richard Brown Linux Distribution Engineer - Future Technology Team Phone +4991174053-361 SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer