archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thorsten Leemhuis <>
To: Linus Torvalds <>
Cc: LKML <>,
	Linux regressions mailing list <>
Subject: Re: Linux regressions report for mainline [2021-11-24]
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 12:52:06 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

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 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:

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

      reply	other threads:[~2021-11-25 11:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-11-24  9:25 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 13:56 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2021-11-24 18:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-11-25 11:52   ` Thorsten Leemhuis [this message]

Reply instructions:

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 \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: Linux regressions report for mainline [2021-11-24]' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

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).