Re: Request: better kernelCI reporting format [was: Re: tip/master baseline: 48 runs, 4 regressions (v6.6-rc4-243-g46219a3ac1db)]

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* Guillaume Tucker <guillaume.tucker@collabora.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the feedback.  We're well aware of the issues with
> these email reports and there's already a plan to entirely rework
> them with the new KernelCI implementation currently under way.

Cool! :-)

> In particular, there will be improvements around tracking known
> issues which will also help enabling bisection email reports
> again.  Replying to the original thread with the patch from the
> lore archives is the ideal way to report issues, and bisections
> as well as "pre-merge" testing of patches allows this.
> 
> Regressions that haven't led to a successful bisection will need
> to be reported similarly to what we have here but as you
> highlighted, repeating known information is not useful.  The
> emails could for example just mention new regressions, and
> provide a link to the new web dashboard with more details about
> all known regressions.
> 
> If these current email reports are mostly causing noise on the
> x86 list and aren't useful then I would suggest to filter them
> out for now or we can just stop sending them until we have a
> better reporting system in place, in the coming months.

Nah, they are still quite useful - which is why I'm complaining
about the format :-)

Thanks,

	Ingo