From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFAB21B85 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 20:05:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:281:8300:104d::5f6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 809255BF; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 19:58:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 809255BF DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1645732684; bh=HVw2UezRrT65n15xUbRuzSJs4qGya2Y7XVmPXK4ePUs=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=J24vHSoqtKXTkX0XKHbreOJXX8M6T4R5iQaMTNdBXNZInKPXCq81/TLB5bQyIEdQa 8C3depVw8nYGm9nvvfdklL2yqoOmsC4wnKxah01KJLoPyiJOkAqktCzEKVJtQQjanX D4jFNafOnvg21idha2Jfi86MrJnGYrqduUE85BfKHvJ1JQtgTWn3vQdK1HF4pXPSB1 lwkEm6OAC9J2XxFXTnjpl0rto1DYPTNaKCEWqzm9EkBIbRYYocha37oSv/x2YweUlm 5vaTf8szj9YR5t9j5VjAFmbUyHIm8Rd2rQU5Lo6lKQqVwl/XNC2EzjeuuoeGGUFPqK bIxBCtRJha47Q== From: Jonathan Corbet To: Thorsten Leemhuis , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: workflows@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Randy Dunlap , regressions@lists.linux.dev, Lukas Bulwahn Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/3] docs: add two texts covering regressions In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 12:58:03 -0700 Message-ID: <871qzskpf8.fsf@meer.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: regressions@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Thorsten Leemhuis writes: > "We don't cause regressions" might be the first rule of Linux kernel > development, but it and other aspects of regressions nevertheless are hardly > described in the Linux kernel's documentation. The following patches change > this by creating two documents dedicated to the topic. > > The second patch could easily be folded into the first one, but was kept > separate, as it might be a bit controversial. This also allows the patch > description to explain some backgrounds for this part of the document. > Additionally, ACKs and Reviewed-by tags can be collected separately this way. Hearing no objections, I have applied this set, thanks. jon