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 D84FD181CEB; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 20:58:55 +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=1712782737; cv=none; b=GQOEYUNC2/i9FxowKyYUPSz3YUTHxWRDlwKmCAR89A0P4WmVof8ZozuRUO/6VgCBJ3Pavt33Zla+085YOAi6Q9mrY4rDXaxybZZ88Ie/sDxzi5sBLs8sIE2BsggqA+Qa15teIqN8PnMAoUSYy1t3cf8H0Mi6hP2oDwDRgRivO2M= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712782737; c=relaxed/simple; bh=+/tK43G6OWAgoc1IQTUZhMc0O85NKgsfQkWwbiBN2Vs=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Gjcio1guYno6LCf9G1PTBXd4vNT2YCWZC4PSVcXXMrkLSFj/DYPQMNrtOQuiEn5ZGOA/xvUiiA5rpp/U3/NUE2A4eEes/JVwmvbHtjJuYW3Xkvz0gsG+efypSkjcoX3jrHRvoMbbXw/y2YWbJRBPbf69j9sXLtGBdYMsPAsqnkc= 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=j1G70P5U; 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="j1G70P5U" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 0C3A347C3E DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1712782735; bh=jqS9ei4MBkFAHGGRpxDKU18p0pVh8bcbcGcggGmQPfM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=j1G70P5UhkT/YPryiPKQIArCsyH4ERz/0JWB3XBZtl+d1Mh99m05L24oxivtAZIPy m71uNgfsE++Dp36nTk1fVseOW4fYvwrXSwXMyo5P46FCn5CBGeAyeLEiDLq0XnUFbl kncHD8tWB8e/3mJDAIk4O9n7dySWBLS0vcgccdUB/TJcgSgM2HdahM2eaiZblhw6SU RGSNQ5hZYrwqlEwOfgsOO0RYPNybsBcuzVdbcsXVE8swol0cYzkgKctQWU+ZQ9yNu5 zdZtBbMjEhZKJXOdhAZBG7fB8LLgMh0cOi8kil2LHoPrw4yMbB/on/tp9nscMn5BBe QOIGftY6OqdVg== 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 0C3A347C3E; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 20:58:54 +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 1/2] docs: reporting-issue: rework the detailed guide In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 14:58:54 -0600 Message-ID: <87cyqxszn5.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 detailed step-by-step guide for various reasons: > > * Simplify the search with the help of lore.kernel.org/all/, which did > not exist when the text was written. > > * Make use of the recently added document > Documentation/admin-guide/verify-bugs-and-bisect-regressions.rst, > which covers many steps this text partly covered way better. > > * 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 we 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). > > * A lot of fine tuning after seeing what people were struggling with. So I have read through this, and don't find anything objectionable. I will point out that each of those bullet items above might be better handled in a separate patch; the result might be easier to review. Thanks, jon