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 8F8437F47B; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 16:02:03 +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=1713196927; cv=none; b=uHGd3E3pQfJTtodqM7l7UjBgqhN7HAuuVOKVYq/mAkI80InTU1ewDLo9vZaGGugJua6u/vdsaHK5AVNvb21QVllmPBxpbexeydtwj20xz5a6Yo87a+z6fsF6HckIcNTgM+HP7fU6RI8BerDswxIleLY/xrutlhCEid7LsWjLJH0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713196927; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/BGZa66OTjq9deqh1Znv9nfCC2KLBveMvqHZgba1FCE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=bMb/fdQBKw2RpGxVsYc93A+gmd5cyKjo/X4XIvTLb3GKPs9zdKPHjNzYoz/Lfkb5ew0G9NToLRQ2OhLDP/7/os4jOEJHrlFU+p8sckhf0iKXz4X0Bq68M64aX27KdrGptllNxsNqghNFaaufPE2bSqWqIFdru+UbU10tz6LpuiM= 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=pIukbNHa; 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="pIukbNHa" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net D08DB47C1D DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1713196917; bh=v662RrsMqneLeLe6D1Sdsis1Ejt/Y1b5HbSUQwtNkOM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=pIukbNHa4VPK81NZ87bc5ZoEq7pEwTmv80ww3+YW/xltKBoqPfK+naBSCqGX18nv8 XjprSRdzn1V9v6UAs62J3dMuhYBoGbY3oA0emwew3pBPLsiciFZzvKCCn6KSxCtW32 0aNtuGSZmArvzNE0ZHZpeOVE+NniQmlUGds6lcbDCj3xA92+fxus3jJSPNjZmQ7DE3 Ld5w0iMdjNPues541zoe/9+LeP3An71n4poDvyGuV2hrYJzvO/DnwE+s0Bp8opuNqI XKXC7VTVvoBBR4YBKWxP6SeYhRbCw6ISOydw3Kiu3Ykpy+Dbyrq8tavdelPUK7zilP O6Cgbv3GLTiiw== Received: from localhost (mdns.lwn.net [45.79.72.68]) (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 D08DB47C1D; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 16:01:56 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Thorsten Leemhuis Cc: regressions@lists.linux.dev, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bagas Sanjaya , Petr =?utf-8?B?VGVzYcWZw61r?= Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] docs: verify/bisect: fine tuning, testing fixes, build host, order In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:01:55 -0600 Message-ID: <87bk6awr64.fsf@meer.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Thorsten Leemhuis writes: > A quick series with various improvements for > Documentation/admin-guide/verify-bugs-and-bisect-regressions.rst after > receiving feedback on the text or seeing people struggle with certain > tasks. > > * The first two patches contains various fixes and some fine tuning. > > * The third is mainly a layout improvement that results in a somewhat > large patch. > > * The fourth adds instructions for later testing of reverts, fixes, or > newer versions. This was already hinted at; but during some early > work on Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst to better > reconcile the two it seemed wise to cover this properly here. > > * The fifth patch briefly outlines how to build kernels on a different > host; it came into being after a second user within one week asked for > this. That also allowed the text to briefly cover cross-compilation. > > * The sixth makes users that face a regression within a stable series > test that series first before they are told to test mainline. > --- > > Hi! While at it let me mention one more thing unrelated to the changes > that came up where I'm unsure if the current approach by the text was > a wise choice: > > * Should the document tell users to avoid mainline during merge windows? > > Some input from the community on this would be splendid. > > Ciao, Thorsten > > P.S.: Not totally sure, but I think this should go into 6.9 as this is > a new document; if not I guess it would be wise to pick the first two, > as they fix bugs. Nobody seems to be complaining, so I've gone ahead and applied the set to docs-fixes. Thanks, jon