On 07.01.22 18:44, Matthias Brugger wrote: > On 07/01/2022 17:51, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> On 07.01.22 16:37, Matthias Brugger wrote: >>> On 07/01/2022 15:21, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >>>> Create a document explaining various aspects around regression handling >>>> and tracking both for users and developers. Among others describe the >>>> first rule of Linux kernel development and what it means in practice. >>>> Also explain what a regression actually is and how to report one >>>> properly. The text additionally provides a brief introduction to the >>>> bot >>>> the kernel's regression tracker uses to facilitate his work. To sum >>>> things up, provide a few quotes from Linus to show how serious he takes >>>> regressions. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> [...] >>>> +The important bits for people fixing regressions >>>> +================================================ >>>> + >>>> +When receiving regression reports by mail, check if the reporter CCed >>>> `the >>>> +regression mailing list <https://lore.kernel.org/regressions/>`_ >>>> +(regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx). If not, forward or bounce the report >>>> to the Linux >>>> +kernel's regression tracker (regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx), unless you >>>> plan on >>> >>> I would have expected it to be the same mailing list >>> (regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx), is this a typo maybe? >> >> Thx for taking a look. Hmm. That's possible, but I (and the grep call I >> just ran) fail to spot the typo. >> >> Maybe the wording is to confusing: regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is the >> list, regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx is a dedicated email address I (the >> kernel's regression tracker) use for regression tracking (which reminds >> me: maybe I should ask for a alias like regressions@xxxxxxxxxx or >> regression-tracker@xxxxxxxxxx). > > Yes it's the wording then :) > Anyway I just wonder why you we should send the regression to the > regressions email list, but only to the tracker email address. For me > that's the confusing part. I'd expect to send it to the list as well and > the tracker takes it from there. If for any reason someone does not want > to send a regression to the list, then he can send it to the tracker > directly. That's my understanding of how this works. If that's correct > then I'd say we should just explain the difference. You comments made be revisit the section and made me spot a few other issues I found less than ideal. So I rewrote it over the weekend (more than once, to be precise...). I hope this clears things up. ``` The important bits for people fixing regressions ================================================ When submitting fixes for regressions, add "Link:" tags pointing to all places where the issue was reported, as tools like the Linux kernel regression bot 'regzbot' heavily rely on these; these pointers are also of great value for people looking into the issue some time in the future, as explained in `Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst` and :ref:`Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst <development_posting>`:: Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/30th.anniversary.repost@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1234567890 Let the Linux kernel's regression tracker and all other subscribers of the `regression mailing list <https://lore.kernel.org/regressions/>`_ (regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) quickly known about newly reported regressions: * When receiving a mailed report that did not CC the list, immediately send at least a brief "Reply-all" with the list CCed to get it into the loop; also ensure its CCed on all future replies, in case it got lost. * If you receive a report from a bug tracker, forward or bounce the report to the list, unless the reporter followed `Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst` instructions and did it already. [Optional] Ensure the Linux kernel regression bot 'regzbot' tracks the issue: * For mailed reports, check if the reporter included a 'regzbot command' like the ``#regzbot introduced v5.13..v5.14-rc1`` described above. If not, send a reply with the regressions list in CC, which includes a paragraph like the following: #regzbot ^introduced v5.13..v5.14-rc1 Note, in this case there is a caret (^) before the `introduced` to make regzbot treat the parent mail (the one you reply to) as the report for the regression you want to see tracked. Instead of specifying a version range you can also state a commit-id, in case the reporter identified the culprit. * When receiving a report from a bug tracker and forwarding it to the regressions list (see above), include a paragraph like this: #regzbot introduced: v5.13..v5.14-rc1 #regzbot from: Some N. Ice Human <some.human@xxxxxxxxxxx> #regzbot monitor: http://some.bugtracker.example.com/ticket?id=123456789 ``` Note, regzbot does not yet support "#regzbot from" and "#regzbot monitor <bugtracker>", but I wanted to work on that soon anyway -- and this text will likely take weeks before it hits mailine, so this shouldn't be a problem. Ciao, Thorsten
