linux-kernel - Re: [Ksummit-discuss] RFC: create mailing list "linux-issues" focussed on issues/bugs and regressions

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <5a26cdba-eff9-8a5c-fda1-3f8d14b49868@leemhuis.info>
Date:   Tue, 23 Mar 2021 19:51:05 +0100
From:   Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        workflows@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ksummit <ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] RFC: create mailing list "linux-issues"
 focussed on issues/bugs and regressions

On 23.03.21 19:11, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 09:57:57AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 22.03.21 22:56, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 08:25:15PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>>> I agree to the last point and yeah, maybe regressions are the more
>>>> important problem we should work on – at least from the perspective of
>>>> kernel development.  But from the users perspective (and
>>>> reporting-issues.rst is written for that perspective) it feel a bit
>>>> unsatisfying to not have a solution to query for existing report,
>>>> regressions or not. Hmmmm...
>>> First of all, thanks for working on reporting-issues.rst.
>> Thx, very glad to hear that. I didn't get much feedback on it, which
>> made me wonder if anybody besides docs folks actually looked at it...
> I'll admit that I had missed your initial submission,

No wonder with all the lists and mails. :-D That's actually why I wanted
to point to the text on ksummit-list once in the near future after two
remaining issues with the text were solved (see below), but before
removing the "WIP" box at the top and deleting reporting-bugs.rst.

> but having
> looked at it, while I could imagine some nits where it could be
> improved,

Yeah, for sure, with such a text that will always be the case. And I
really would like if a few more people take a closer look and provide
feedback, that really helps to get such a text in shape. I have stared
so much at the text in recent months, that makes it quite easy to miss
typos and errors in the logical flow that a fresh pair of eyes will
immediately spot...

> in my opinion, it's strictly better than the older
> reporting-bugs doc.

Great, thx.

>> Hmmm, yeah, I like that idea. I'll keep it in mind for later: I would
>> prefer to get reporting-issues.rst officially blessed and
>> reporting-bugs.rst gone before working on further enhancements.
> Is there anyone following this thread who believes that there is
> anything we should change *before* oficially blessing
> reporting-issues.rst?  Given that Konstantin has already linked to
> reporting-issues from the front page of kernel.bugzilla.org, I think
> we we should just go ahead and officially bless it and be done with
> it.   :-)

FWIW, here is my current todo list from the top of my head:

* get this patchset reviewed and applied:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/cover.1616181657.git.linux@leemhuis.info/

* *afterwards* make sure Greg and/or Sasha (now CCed) check the text
from their point of view (above patchset changes quite a few things in
that area, that's why it needs to be applied first)

* get feedback reg. the two FIXME boxes remaining afterwards. One is
about bugzilla (```The old text took a totally different approach to
bugzilla.kernel.org...```), the other about CCing LKML  (```Above
section tells users to always CC LKML […] Should we create mailing list
like linux-issues@...r.kernel.org```). But I guess the approach taken
should be fine for most people, so we could simply remove them. We can
still change things later anyway, I just put those boxes there to
highlight these differences to the old approach.

* remove the note at the top (```This document is being prepared to
replace 'Reporting bugs...``` and delete reporting-bugs.rst

> Once it is blessed, I'd also suggest putting a link to
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/admin-guide/reporting-issues.html
> as an "other resources" at https://www.kernel.org.

+1

Ciao, Thorsten