linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 02/26] docs: reporting-bugs: Create a TLDR how to report issues

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6f1fcb33-86d6-7573-22b5-8f713a2857e3@leemhuis.info>
Date:   Thu, 12 Nov 2020 05:56:12 +0100
From:   Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
To:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 02/26] docs: reporting-bugs: Create a TLDR how to
 report issues

Am 12.11.20 um 04:33 schrieb Randy Dunlap:
> On 11/11/20 7:24 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Am 03.10.20 um 09:27 schrieb Thorsten Leemhuis:
>>> Am 02.10.20 um 04:32 schrieb Randy Dunlap:
>>>> On 10/1/20 1:39 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: […]
 > […]

Sorry for the mail with those overly long lines, seems Thunderbird does 
not behave as it used to (or I did something stupid) :-/

>> I'm preparing to send v2 and was a bit unhappy with this and
>> another section when seeing it again after weeks. In the end I
>> reshuffled and rewrote significant parts of it, see below.
>> 
>> […]
>> If you can not reproduce the issue with the mainline kernel,
>> consider sticking with it; if you'd like to use an older version
>> line and want to see it fixed there, first make sure it's still
>> supported. Install its latest release as vanilla kernel. If you
>> cannot reproduce the issue there, try to find the commit that fixed
>> it in mainline or any discussion preceding it: those will often
>> mention if backporting is planed or considered impassable. If
>> backporting was not discussed, ask if it's in the cards. In case
>> you don't find
> impossible.  ??

Hmmm, I didn't won't to use "impossible" as it often is possible, but 
considered to hard/to much work. But I guess my dict sent me the wrong way.

I'll guess I'll switch to "considered too complex"

>> any commits or a preceding discussion, see the Linux-stable mailing
>> list archives for existing reports, as it might be a regression
>> specific to the version line. If it is, it round about needs to be
>> reported like a problem in mainline (including the bisection).
> maybe:  it still needs to be reported like

Went with:

If it is, report it like you would report a problem in mainline 
(including the bisection).

>> If you reached this point without a solution, ask for advice one
>> the subsystem's mailing list. ```
> Otherwise it looks good to me.

Many thanks for looking at it, much appreciated!

Ciao, Thorsten