From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: 2.6.32-rc1-git2: Reported regressions from 2.6.31 Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 19:32:27 +0200 Message-ID: <200910021932.27789.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <9UCePxij8cB.A.VCG.-3SxKB@chimera> <1254469139.3531.19.camel@ht.satnam> <4AC5F975.6060505@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jaswinder Singh Rajput , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Adrian Bunk , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Natalie Protasevich , Kernel Testers List , Network Development , Linux ACPI , Linux PM List , Linux SCSI List , Linux Wireless List , DRI To: Stefan Richter Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4AC5F975.6060505@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Friday 02 October 2009, Stefan Richter wrote: > Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote: > > If you add one more entry say "Suspected commit :" then it will be great > > and will solve regressions much faster. > > Will? Might. In fact I add the "First-Bad-Commit" annotation where there is a bisection result or it's possible to fix things by reverting a specific commit. > > You can request submitter to > > submit 'suspected commit' by git bisect and also specify git bisect > > links like : (for more information about git bisect check > > http://kerneltrap.org/node/11753) > > I disagree. A reporter should only be asked to bisect (using git or > other tools) /if/ a developer determined that bisection may speed up the > debugging process or is the only remaining option to make progress with > a bug. > > It would be wrong to steal a reporter's valuable time by asking for > bisection before anybody familiar with the matter even had a first look > at the report. Agreed. Thanks, Rafael