Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/26] Make reporting-bugs easier to grasp and yet
 more detailed & helpful
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
Cc:     linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <cover.1605203187.git.linux@leemhuis.info>
 <20201113153313.68ff210c@lwn.net>
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Message-ID: <52f7937e-5a83-7783-83c9-820b24c2dca6@infradead.org>
Date:   Fri, 13 Nov 2020 14:47:10 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20201113153313.68ff210c@lwn.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 11/13/20 2:33 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 18:58:37 +0100
> Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info> wrote:
> 
>> This series rewrites the "how to report bugs to the Linux kernel
>> maintainers" document to make it more straight forward and its essence
>> easier to grasp. At the same time make the text provide a lot more details
>> about the process in form of a reference section, so users that want or
>> need to know them have them at hand.
>>
>> The goal of this rewrite: improve the quality of the bug reports and
>> reduce the number of reports that get ignored. This was motivated by many
>> reports of poor quality the submitter noticed while looking after Linux
>> kernel regression tracking many moons ago.
> 
> So I've not had a chance to try to read through the whole thing again,
> will try to do so in the near future.
> 
> As for how to proceed...getting others to review this is going to be a bit
> of a challenge.  Perhaps the right approach is to just merge the new
> document under a new name - reporting-bugs-the-novel.txt or something -
> then try to get a few people to look at specific parts of it?  Once all
> seems well we can rename it over the old document and call it done.
> 
> Make sense?

I like that idea.

I don't plan to review the series in detail like I did with v1.

-- 
~Randy