In data martedì 18 aprile 2017 16:37:18 CEST, Aleix Pol ha scritto: Hello Aleix,
sorry for the delay in the response. > Clearly having an LTS release doesn't cut it for openSUSE, as we > already did that last time and for the next release we're receiving > yet another e-mail like the house is on fire. openSUSE is in part handled by SUSE (the company) and in part by the community. There are cases where the the wishes of the individuals in each of the two may differ a lot. That is why some individuals (including high-profile community members) are pushing to use GNOME by default, which is the desktop used by SUSE Enterprise Linux. The main reasons, as far as I can understand, are the fact that there are people working on it already, and because they would share the development/maintenance with RH. And RH handles a good part of GNOME, so it's clearly seen as "enterprise". Of course, openSUSE *doesn't* have to do that by default, and in fact that is why (long) threads have went on the relevant topic (although the community is sadly very keen on converting all discussions and debates into awful flamewars, with no actual content except "KDE sux" and "GNOME sux more"). As far as I can understand, this topic comes out every now and then internally.But at least IMO, what we want to do is to make Plasma even more viable than before (it is already a lot, in my unscientific opinion) to ensure it is not demoted for mere politics. > - Which parts from 5.8 have worked well? The whole LTS part in my opinion worked *remarkably* well. It provided a very good desktop, supported by bugfixes over long periods of time. I would add that also the beta and the early release phase done almost impeccably. Timing was, as discussed at the time, very useful. > - Which parts from 5.8 haven't worked well? Some are due to the process, and not a fault of Plasma itself. The openSUSE maintenance team, which is in charge of the stable version updates, doesn't like when we supply tarballs with updated version numbers and no actual changes. On the other side of the fence, I know this may cause some logistic problems (I know that David Faure rejected such an approach when some Kolab Systems people asked for it in KF5). In some cases, commits broke building and the (very rare) "feature" changes like when the tm partial rewrite code ended up in 5.8. In general terms, there were a more than a few case of regressions. > - Do you have the feeling that your feedback is acted on? In my opinion yes, but I have one foot in two shoes, so to speak. ;) > - Where are the problems we should be concerned with? Detailing arguments why some favor GNOME over KDE would just result in bikeshedding, but we can list some if you'd like to. > Personally, with my Discover hat on, I have seen very little feedback > from opensuse and that worries me: We don't have Discover installed by default. Some of the reasons are: - We found PackageKit to be not too reliable (in our experience). - The zypp based PackageKit backend used by openSUSE does not stay active in the background, which is a problem for Discover (but also for other AppStream software centers). A fix is being worked on. - Other KDE team members found Discover to be very prone to crashes, but it may have to do with Qt rather than Discover itself. - We found the UI to be a little alien to the rest of Plasma. It's installed by default on the KDE live images (not the general openSUSE lives, but KDE team live images) though. With all that said, let's also focus on the future: Qt 5.9 will be a LTS release (and will be likely also shipped by "enterprise" distributions), so it would be a good idea to plan a new Plasma LTS release sitting on top of Qt 5.9. What do you think? Thanks in advance. -- Luca Beltrame - KDE Forums team GPG key ID: A29D259B
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.