From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B904C181BBC; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:00:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712782808; cv=none; b=AifLbD02DtnLKpFbbkbdXUuqm91uQYFvp0B40zy55XDplXbs7vQapNmCPSMrD2gT72gpw2Uaimo1yxO9LRzb/dI75pNrPrYLZu5F5+lNibhf0kzAhhwASLVoiiNmxSmxokigYMa21lEPiaQWuHwE6eJ77a3uUlxWMDOUFOdWFys= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712782808; c=relaxed/simple; bh=NZxSmvOIrL+98WYQwIqbcfn2nyl5N/8M638PLwCqKpk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=BVPk8x6HiH4lYRPCQiVs2hYgw7fOJ+kDBCd9+g4hkOZD1W+S5ECSn2tu4bOoTHRS1com671jgSoxY7yFzjtRyJrMKJQ2xcN6rv431dEAM5cJ2/UWUoXTfhWnpPDdZas7TOf0JtWqqVpRW0qieR1Go0wdACL1+Q0Wqf7ND82JH7Y= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=kAw7RbSv; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="kAw7RbSv" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 08CCF47C3E DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1712782804; bh=bBiHyQknYVefwGowYX8X98+sWwdYwknbIEfcbgt8MVY=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=kAw7RbSv9BcBu6s7oRnasuRvyvN9sgglhE1xceLaBCStyIXPzVUEfEV1mN3h3GNnP pnS8SsZgOyt+cSOYYrcYdAKSkRHX1HD87wvo9F91Rsf2fQ/NSTATSyTNhXlk/SGq0B w321qbDUaYD6BdSycet+3dSY6ICKDwILgCTyOdZ8Wjinrk5/f9gaI/TLMFRAluTySB GKUlHGc+tW77Tnd+G5eOG+Egrt1cfv4buCTF7D/aA7EAYc9RgylsZSvls4p7sCObX9 XVtROmBWJ9sAlqheyJEsfJzkmxddRDvymDxOV/TdYTUwrszJ+3JjVj86yGoHs2P8sr B0Xej9WywdOWg== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:5e00:625:67c:16ff:fe81:5f9b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 08CCF47C3E; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:00:03 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Thorsten Leemhuis Cc: regressions@lists.linux.dev, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 2/2] docs: reporting-issue: rework the TLDR In-Reply-To: <2f5a78745cbe0a99a4592612d6ffd57a17619fb4.1711455295.git.linux@leemhuis.info> References: <2f5a78745cbe0a99a4592612d6ffd57a17619fb4.1711455295.git.linux@leemhuis.info> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 15:00:03 -0600 Message-ID: <878r1lszl8.fsf@meer.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Thorsten Leemhuis writes: > Rework the TLDR (aka the short guide) for various reasons: > > * People had to read it entirely and then act upon what they learned, > which from feedback I got was apparently somewhat hard and confusing > given everything we expect from bug reporters; this partly was because > the first paragraph covered a special case (regression in > stable/longterm kernel) and not the main aspect most people cared > about when they came to the document. > > Use a step-by-step approach to avoid this. > > * Make use of > Documentation/admin-guide/verify-bugs-and-bisect-regressions.rst > > * The 'quickly report a stable regression to the stable team' approach > hardly worked out: most of the time the regression was not known yet. > Try a different approach using the regressions list. > > * Reports about stable/longterm regressions most of the time were > greeted with a brief reply along the lines of 'Is mainline affected as > well?'; this is needed to determine who is responsible, so it might as > well make the reporter check that before sending the report (which > verify-bugs-and-bisect-regressions.rst already tells them to do, too). > > Not-signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis > --- > .../admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst | 104 +++++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-) >From a quick read, no objections here. jon