On 5/10/23 16:51, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: > Bagas, thx for all your help with regression tracking, much appreciated > (side note, as I'm curious for a while already: what is your motivation? > Just want to help? But whatever, any help is great!). > I did this when I was on "gabut" (an Indonesian slang term that means doing nothing but get rewarded). In other words, I was finding a task when there is no documentation review or issues that needs to be worked on. > That being said: I'm not sure if I like what you did in this particular > case, as developers might start getting annoyed by regression tracking > if we throw too many bug reports of lesser quality before their feet -- > and then they might start to ignore us, which we really need to prevent. > > That's why I would not have forwarded that report at this point of time, > mainly for these reasons: > > * The initial report is quite old already, as it fall through the > cracks (not good, but happens; sorry Azamat!). Hence in this case it > would definitely be better to *first* ask the reporter to check if the > problem still happens with latest mainline (or at least latest stable) > before involving the kernel developers, as it might have been fixed > already. > Oh dear, I have already seen the bug age (two years old, from Reported date). > * This might not be a amdgpu bug at all; in fact the other bug the > reporter mentioned was an iommu thing. Hence this might be one of those > regressions where a bisection is the only way to get down to the > problem. Sure, sending a few developers a quick inquiry along the lines > of "do you maybe have an idea what's up there" is fine, but that's not > what you did in your mail. Your list of recipients is also quite long; > that's risky: if you do that too often, as then they might start > ignoring mail from you. > Oops, I was blindly copy-paste get_maintainer.pl list at that time. Anyway, thanks for the reminder! -- An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
