Re: [PATCH v3] docs: bug-bisect: add a note about bisecting -next

[Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1763 bytes --]

On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 01:11:08PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/bug-bisect.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/bug-bisect.rst
> index 585630d14581c7..f4f867cabb1778 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/bug-bisect.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/bug-bisect.rst
> @@ -108,6 +108,27 @@ a fully reliable and straight-forward way to reproduce the regression, too.*
>  With that the process is complete. Now report the regression as described by
>  Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst.
>  
> +Bisecting linux-next
> +--------------------
> +
> +If you face a problem only happening in linux-next, bisect between the
> +linux-next branches 'stable' and 'master'. The following commands will start
> +the process for a linux-next tree you added as a remote called 'next'::
> +
> +  git bisect start
> +  git bisect good next/stable
> +  git bisect bad next/master
> +
> +The 'stable' branch refers to the state of linux-mainline that the current
> +linux-next release (found in the 'master' branch) is based on -- the former
> +thus should be free of any problems that show up in -next, but not in Linus'
> +tree.
> +
> +This will bisect across a wide range of changes, some of which you might have
> +used in earlier linux-next releases without problems. Sadly there is no simple
> +way to avoid checking them: bisecting from one linux-next release to a later
> +one (say between 'next-20241020' and 'next-20241021') is impossible, as they
> +share no common history.
>  
>  Additional reading material
>  ---------------------------
> 

Looks good, thanks!

Reviewed-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]