From: "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)" <regressions@leemhuis.info>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: regressions@lists.linux.dev, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Bagas Sanjaya" <bagasdotme@gmail.com>,
"Nathan Chancellor" <nathan@kernel.org>,
"Petr Tesařík" <petr@tesarici.cz>,
"Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>,
"Jani Nikula" <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] docs: new text on bisecting which also covers bug validation
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:22:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aaf7a195-e726-4bcb-a63a-4e75c09608ef@leemhuis.info> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <878r2zz5n7.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
On 03.03.24 16:39, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)"
> <regressions@leemhuis.info> writes:
>
>> On 01.03.24 09:41, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>> Add a second document on bisecting regressions explaining the whole
>>> process from beginning to end -- while also describing how to validate
>>> if a problem is still present in mainline. This "two in one" approach
>>> is possible, as checking whenever a bug is in mainline is one of the
>>> first steps before performing a bisection anyway and thus needs to be
>>> described. Due to this approach the text also works quite nicely in
>>> conjunction with Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst, as it
>>> covers all typical cases where users will need to build a kernel in
>>> exactly the same order.
>>> [...]
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst
>>> index ed8a629e59c86a..c53bb6e36291b8 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst
>>> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst
>>> @@ -1,4 +1,3 @@
>>> -=================================================
>>
>> Just saw that, that line obviously was not meant to be removed. Sorry.
>>
>> Jonathan, in case you consider merging this "soon", as suggested
>> yesterday by Vegard, could you please fix this up? Otherwise I'll fix
>> this with v3.
>
> I've applied the patch and undone the little change, no need for a v3.
Great, thx and thx!
FWIW, I received some feedback from a user who among others also noticed
a bug. Will send a follow-up patch in a few days when the dust settled
and a few details are fully ironed out.
Thx again for merging it. Ciao, Thorsten
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-04 12:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-01 8:41 [PATCH v2] docs: new text on bisecting which also covers bug validation Thorsten Leemhuis
2024-03-01 13:22 ` Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)
2024-03-03 15:39 ` Jonathan Corbet
2024-03-04 12:22 ` Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aaf7a195-e726-4bcb-a63a-4e75c09608ef@leemhuis.info \
--to=regressions@leemhuis.info \
--cc=bagasdotme@gmail.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nathan@kernel.org \
--cc=petr@tesarici.cz \
--cc=regressions@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=vegard.nossum@oracle.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox