On 23.03.21 19:11, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 09:57:57AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> On 22.03.21 22:56, Theodore Ts'o wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 08:25:15PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >>>> I agree to the last point and yeah, maybe regressions are the more >>>> important problem we should work on – at least from the perspective of >>>> kernel development. But from the users perspective (and >>>> reporting-issues.rst is written for that perspective) it feel a bit >>>> unsatisfying to not have a solution to query for existing report, >>>> regressions or not. Hmmmm... >>> First of all, thanks for working on reporting-issues.rst. >> Thx, very glad to hear that. I didn't get much feedback on it, which >> made me wonder if anybody besides docs folks actually looked at it... > I'll admit that I had missed your initial submission, No wonder with all the lists and mails. :-D That's actually why I wanted to point to the text on ksummit-list once in the near future after two remaining issues with the text were solved (see below), but before removing the "WIP" box at the top and deleting reporting-bugs.rst. > but having > looked at it, while I could imagine some nits where it could be > improved, Yeah, for sure, with such a text that will always be the case. And I really would like if a few more people take a closer look and provide feedback, that really helps to get such a text in shape. I have stared so much at the text in recent months, that makes it quite easy to miss typos and errors in the logical flow that a fresh pair of eyes will immediately spot... > in my opinion, it's strictly better than the older > reporting-bugs doc. Great, thx. >> Hmmm, yeah, I like that idea. I'll keep it in mind for later: I would >> prefer to get reporting-issues.rst officially blessed and >> reporting-bugs.rst gone before working on further enhancements. > Is there anyone following this thread who believes that there is > anything we should change *before* oficially blessing > reporting-issues.rst? Given that Konstantin has already linked to > reporting-issues from the front page of kernel.bugzilla.org, I think > we we should just go ahead and officially bless it and be done with > it. :-) FWIW, here is my current todo list from the top of my head: * get this patchset reviewed and applied: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/cover.1616181657.git.linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ * *afterwards* make sure Greg and/or Sasha (now CCed) check the text from their point of view (above patchset changes quite a few things in that area, that's why it needs to be applied first) * get feedback reg. the two FIXME boxes remaining afterwards. One is about bugzilla (```The old text took a totally different approach to bugzilla.kernel.org...```), the other about CCing LKML (```Above section tells users to always CC LKML […] Should we create mailing list like linux-issues@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx```). But I guess the approach taken should be fine for most people, so we could simply remove them. We can still change things later anyway, I just put those boxes there to highlight these differences to the old approach. * remove the note at the top (```This document is being prepared to replace 'Reporting bugs...``` and delete reporting-bugs.rst > Once it is blessed, I'd also suggest putting a link to > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/admin-guide/reporting-issues.html > as an "other resources" at https://www.kernel.org. +1 Ciao, Thorsten
