From: Linus Torvalds <email@example.com>
To: "Regzbot (on behalf of Thorsten Leemhuis)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: LKML <email@example.com>,
Linux regressions mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Linux regressions report for mainline [2021-11-24]
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 10:13:55 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wimd-G9+etiTb=_yqxy8H45su-=WXdLBrhi2TJK+gB+Mw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
Ok, nice to see the new regression tracking bot start to show life.
Greg had one suggestion, 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:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 1:25 AM Regzbot (on behalf of Thorsten
Leemhuis) <email@example.com> wrote:
> current cycle (v5.15.. aka v5.16-rc), culprit identified
> previous cycle (v5.14..v5.15), culprit identified, with activity in the past three months
> older cycles (..v5.14), culprit identified, with activity in the past three months
> current cycle (v5.15.. aka v5.16-rc), unkown culprit
note how there was a lot of other stuff in between those "culprit
idenfified" and "unknown culprit" for the current kernel.
One of the things I really liked about the regression tracking you did
before was that it helped me get a sense for the state of the release,
and so I'd like to see that "current cycle" in one go.
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, but that was my initial reaction to this first report.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-24 18:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-24 9:25 Linux regressions report for mainline [2021-11-24] Regzbot (on behalf of Thorsten Leemhuis)
2021-11-24 10:01 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2021-11-24 11:03 ` Greg KH
2021-11-24 12:52 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2021-11-24 18:13 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2021-11-25 11:52 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).