On 13.12.24 17:17, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Add a few notes on when to involve Linus in regressions. Part of this >> spells out slightly obvious things infrequent developers might not be >> aware of, while others are based on a recent statement from Linus[1]. >> >> This removes equivalent paragraphs from a section in >> Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst, which will become mostly >> obsolete through this and follow-up changes. >> >> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wis_qQy4oDNynNKi5b7Qhosmxtoj1jxo5wmB6SRUwQUBQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ [1] >> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> Documentation/process/6.Followthrough.rst | 17 +++++++++++++++++ >> Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst | 17 ----------------- >> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/process/6.Followthrough.rst b/Documentation/process/6.Followthrough.rst >> index ed5e32348f2403..f9ae3a86ee0c49 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/process/6.Followthrough.rst >> +++ b/Documentation/process/6.Followthrough.rst >> @@ -217,6 +217,23 @@ On procedure: >> on the fix and the alignment with pull requests it might be beneficial to >> have them in there for a day or two. >> >> + - If a regression seems tangly, precarious, or urgent, consider CCing Linus on >> + discussions and patch reviews; do the same if the responsible maintainers >> + are suspected to be unavailable. > > I'm not quite sure what "tangly" or "precarious" means in this case? Hmmm. Something like "complicated", but that didn't feel right and then like went too far. I'll to with "urgent, tricky, or controversial" instead. Ciao, Thorsten
