On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 04:44:21PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > FWIW, on another channel someone mentioned the process in the TLDR is > > quite complicated when it comes to regressions in stable and longterm > > kernels. I looked at the text and it seemed like a valid complaint, esp. > > as those regressions are something we really care about. > > > > To solve this properly I sadly had to shake up the text in this section > > completely and rewrite parts of it. Find the result below. I'm quite > > happy with it, as it afaics is more straight forward and easier to > > understand. And it matches the step-by-step guide better. And the best > > thing: it's a bit shorter than the old TLDR. > > I think this is much improved - concise is good! :) I really just have > one little comment... > > > I'll wait a day or two and then will send it through the regular review > > together with a few small other fixes that piled up for the text, just > > wanted to add it here for completeness. > > > > --- > > The short guide (aka TL;DR) > > =========================== > > > > Are you facing a regression with vanilla kernels from the same stable or > > longterm series? One still supported? Then search the `LKML > > <https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/>`_ and the `Linux stable mailing list > > <https://lore.kernel.org/stable/>_` archives for matching reports to > > join. If you don't find any, install `the latest release from that > > series <https://kernel.org/>`_. If it still shows the issue, report it > > to the stable mailing list and the stable maintainers. > > If we really want this to be a short guide that gets people to the > answer quickly, we might as well put the addresses to report to right > here rather than making people search for them. "stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" is good to use here, no need to also cc: any individuals for this type of thing. thanks, greg k-h
