Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-89807-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To: "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)" <regressions@leemhuis.info>
Cc: regressions@lists.linux.dev, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>, Nathan
 Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>, Petr =?utf-8?B?VGVzYcWZw61r?=
 <petr@tesarici.cz>, Vegard
 Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>, Jani Nikula
 <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] docs: new text on bisecting which also covers bug
 validation
In-Reply-To: <6d282271-25fa-4ed9-9748-df3705f9d5fb@leemhuis.info>
References: <02b084a06de4ad61ac4ecd92b9265d4df4d03d71.1709282441.git.linux@leemhuis.info>
 <6d282271-25fa-4ed9-9748-df3705f9d5fb@leemhuis.info>
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2024 08:39:24 -0700
Message-ID: <878r2zz5n7.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

"Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)"
<regressions@leemhuis.info> writes:

> On 01.03.24 09:41, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Add a second document on bisecting regressions explaining the whole
>> process from beginning to end -- while also describing how to validate
>> if a problem is still present in mainline.  This "two in one" approach
>> is possible, as checking whenever a bug is in mainline is one of the
>> first steps before performing a bisection anyway and thus needs to be
>> described. Due to this approach the text also works quite nicely in
>> conjunction with Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst, as it
>> covers all typical cases where users will need to build a kernel in
>> exactly the same order.
>> [...]
>> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst
>> index ed8a629e59c86a..c53bb6e36291b8 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst
>> @@ -1,4 +1,3 @@
>> -=================================================
>
> Just saw that, that line obviously was not meant to be removed. Sorry.
>
> Jonathan, in case you consider merging this "soon", as suggested
> yesterday by  Vegard, could you please fix this up? Otherwise I'll fix
> this with v3.

I've applied the patch and undone the little change, no need for a v3.

Thanks,

jon