On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 03:27:56PM +0100, Guillaume Tucker wrote: > On 14/12/2022 14:50, Mark Brown wrote: > > As a developer I tend to find this unhelpful, it makes it much more > > likely that the mail will get missed. As a reporter it means there's > > more information to copy into the report. > Well it's up to you or anyone reporting the bisection result. > Base on my personal experience, I always got very quick replies > when doing this. For me on the recipient side it's more a question of if you get any at all. > I don't see your point about copying more information though, I > would just open the mbox in my mail client to reply and paste the > content of the bisection report. With a bit more work this could > be fully automated but that should be part of the bisection > rework using the new API & pipeline so sometime later in 2023... If I'm manually pasing stuff I either have to quote it by hand or feel like I need to edit the automatically generated bits. > > I do notice that the Renesas tree tends to get a *lot* of the bisection > > reports generated for some reason (vastly more than any other tree > > including mainline or -next), however this wasn't sent based on the tree > > at all - I just looked at the people involved with the commit. > In the past month, there were 15 bisection reports on renesas, 7 > on linux-next and 28 on mainline for a total of 79 so 29 in other > trees. So it's true renesas is getting quite a lot of them, it's > not entirely clear to me why that's the case but it's worth > investigating a bit. Yeah, that's vastly more than I'd expect and the overwhelming majority of them are quite clearly not specific to the Renesas tree (things like bootrr failures for non-Renesas boards).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
