Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Nov 2021 12:52:06 +0100 | Subject | Re: Linux regressions report for mainline [2021-11-24] | From | Thorsten Leemhuis <> |
| |
On 24.11.21 19:13, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Ok, nice to see the new regression tracking bot start to show life.
Yeah. :-D
Sadly one of my biggest problems with regression tracking remains: getting aware of regression reports. I can fully understand that most people don't care about regzbot for now, but it would really help if everyone would CC regressions@lists.linux.dev on mails regarding regressions (e.g. reports or any replies to them).
> Greg had one suggestion,
Still not sure how to approach his use case, but for now I started adding the usual subsystem commit summary prefixes (e.g. "net:", "usb:", "drm/amd") to the title of newly added regression, which might help somewhat and won't hurt.
> I have another - namely about grouping of these things. > > I like how you group them by "identified" and "unknown", because > that's certainly very meaningful. > > But at the same time it does mean that if I look for "what are current > issues with the development kernel", it ends up being very spread out:
Hah, fun fact: the order you purposed was the one I initially had in mind. But I later changed my mind, as I thought 'hey, if the culprit of the regression is known, it should be able to fix this quickly (e.g. by a revert, if there are no conflicts) even for regressions that made it into proper releases".
But whatever: I'm totally fine with this and already changed the web interface yesterday after your mail arrived, only took a minute:
https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/regzbot/mainline/
Next report will use this order as well.
> I suspect that Greg may have a slightly similar issue - as a driver > maintainer, he cares about current cycle things (but mainly only when > they affect his subsystems), but with his stable maintainer hat on he > then cares more about the older cycles. > > Greg suggested splitting out the issues one by one - to try to have > the right people on the Cc for any _particular_ issue, and while I > think that's not the solution in this case (I very much want to see > the "summary" email), it would be good to perhaps at least organize > that summary email slightly differently. > > I suspect this is something we'd need to iterate on as we use this in > our workflow
Definitely. If there is something else you want to see changed or think is odd wrt to regzbot or my work as regression tracker, just let me know.
> but that was my initial reaction to this first report.
Thx for the feedback, much appreciated.
Ciao, Thorsten
| |