Update openSUSE cpes

[svet-se]

Description:

• Update openSUSE cpes

Rationale:

• Add support for Leap 16 and Tumbleweed

[openshift-ci]

Hi @svet-se. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a github.com member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[Mab879]

@teacup-on-rockingchair Look good to you?

[svet-se]

@teacup-on-rockingchair Look good to you?

Hey @Mab879, maybe you should review the maintainers acceptance approach. The question here is if we would like the acceptance of the code related to a particular product to be reviewed form an SME? Now, my code is reviewed by teacup-on-rockingchair (which is best practice), but who reviewed his code, as he is the only SUSE maintainer in CaC?

[teacup-on-rockingchair]

LGTM dropping of old leap releases is due to EOL of those products so better have it up-to-date 👍

[Mab879]

@teacup-on-rockingchair Look good to you?

Hey @Mab879, maybe you should review the maintainers acceptance approach. The question here is if we would like the acceptance of the code related to a particular product to be reviewed form an SME? Now, my code is reviewed by teacup-on-rockingchair (which is best practice), but who reviewed his code, as he is the only SUSE maintainer in CaC?

Right now one of the admins has to review it. As for SUSE, I recommend that you apply for merge rights so that your products have two reviewers. I wish there was an easy way for two maintainers to override the CODEOWNERs for example, but that doesn't seem easy currently.

[Mab879]

Overriding the static checks as they should not be affected by this PR.