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 733A355E47; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 22:07:25 +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=1708380446; cv=none; b=k3EnC5z+0nhCry2v7Djt7ysLJirIW0PGOeqk3GCHp28nJH3KwTi4f9+NNDSVVeN+pRPrOwbEcnZyumX5Rodn7mKJ/6zG/62nLviDOrrcxJ04Gbik05kk2iwdCbuzSFLTLAYLQgeZ8tKb+TwMUz9w8Ikma6TvHv5zQzZ37psqWAY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708380446; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vPx+i4YZu6acCeEWwBUL2nNSMhYkEmcB/Msn/Zpo4bs=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=YaddbvOV4X9b4aeQDRtO6MIExVHT8Kk2w90WjV0HQebypk3LIysj9I0vPrhVcu3lLZ0p8gnknISz7SKHii+8kRKFZ0cHvyw3nsW8SAvm4RYmw+Eygl+IGvYR063XXHttXFN9J0kTpLMwWGzyW1BvyjIxkuGWWLdLyAuC5W+naJk= 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=flDMcufA; 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="flDMcufA" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 9727A47A99 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1708380444; bh=WQNrF1tBn1L+1P+pwGgLFmtvTUbb66/8AuK0cY3LefU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=flDMcufAUFMoNKNheRkxzhUKkvLtaagrWXIjvfHPJlFflZlZV4YiJnP0GU9ulLl6i PKpj9STlaVHFdBE2b97fNkYkj9QegKbXsoLqvZIwzn0LGzfEZOEdJFCl2n5r68lLMT frWcxVnpkk+vu5COq3bCXOizDPxbPZ0LAmocUuJAvcIlYMaJJQatKc1E7QHbOdv4U4 frCZIYxR4RrOMDsNL4x+OttX/VI25PzbVBDh1bQr/yKcOEegHLUUVvRnGcmt5TRs+A d7d2k5y62oGjGDbdGNCgAyqXC8dgEcvFa4LjjtWpHUI0Fa9W8Pl4laYkFwugCW60Wc r6hPyiVxsGjNQ== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:5e00:625::646]) (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 9727A47A99; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 22:07:24 +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 , Nathan Chancellor Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] docs: new text on bisecting which also covers bug validation In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 15:07:23 -0700 Message-ID: <87edd8m7l0.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: > Replace the existing brief explanation on bisecting regressions with a > text describing 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 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. I have scanned over this; don't really have a time to do a detailed reading at this point. My overall impression is: it's useful information, but I think we're going to overwhelm people. I worry that we're replacing a one-page file on how to do a bisect with a 1,900-line beast. I suspect there are whole classes of readers who want the new stuff, but there are others who would be better served by something much more terse. I'll repeat a question I've asked before: should we create a separate "tutorials" book for this kind of material? I honestly think that the readers for this kind of documentation will be a different crowd, and everybody might be better off if we put the tutorial material in one place where they can find it easily. Regardless, thanks for doing this, jon