linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] docs: *-regressions.rst: unify quoting, add missing word

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]

Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 16:13:53 +0200
From: "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)"
 <regressions@...mhuis.info>
To: Karel Balej <balejk@...fyz.cz>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
 regressions@...ts.linux.dev, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, workflows@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] docs: *-regressions.rst: unify quoting, add missing
 word

On 28.03.24 20:29, Karel Balej wrote:
> Quoting of the '"no regressions" rule' expression differs between
> occurrences, sometimes being presented as '"no regressions rule"'. Unify
> the quoting using the first form which seems semantically correct or is
> at least used dominantly, albeit marginally.
> 
> One of the occurrences is obviously missing the 'rule' part -- add it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Karel Balej <balejk@...fyz.cz>

Thx for this:

Reviewed-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>

Ciao, Thorsten


> ---
>  Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-regressions.rst | 10 +++++-----
>  Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst      |  2 +-
>  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-regressions.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-regressions.rst
> index 76b246ecf21b..946518355a2c 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-regressions.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-regressions.rst
> @@ -42,12 +42,12 @@ The important basics
>  --------------------
>  
>  
> -What is a "regression" and what is the "no regressions rule"?
> +What is a "regression" and what is the "no regressions" rule?
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>  
>  It's a regression if some application or practical use case running fine with
>  one Linux kernel works worse or not at all with a newer version compiled using a
> -similar configuration. The "no regressions rule" forbids this to take place; if
> +similar configuration. The "no regressions" rule forbids this to take place; if
>  it happens by accident, developers that caused it are expected to quickly fix
>  the issue.
>  
> @@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ Additional details about regressions
>  ------------------------------------
>  
>  
> -What is the goal of the "no regressions rule"?
> +What is the goal of the "no regressions" rule?
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>  
>  Users should feel safe when updating kernel versions and not have to worry
> @@ -199,8 +199,8 @@ Exceptions to this rule are extremely rare; in the past developers almost always
>  turned out to be wrong when they assumed a particular situation was warranting
>  an exception.
>  
> -Who ensures the "no regressions" is actually followed?
> -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +Who ensures the "no regressions" rule is actually followed?
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>  
>  The subsystem maintainers should take care of that, which are watched and
>  supported by the tree maintainers -- e.g. Linus Torvalds for mainline and
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst b/Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst
> index ce6753a674f3..49ba1410cfce 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst
> @@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ What else is there to known about regressions?
>  Check out Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-regressions.rst, it covers a lot
>  of other aspects you want might want to be aware of:
>  
> - * the purpose of the "no regressions rule"
> + * the purpose of the "no regressions" rule
>  
>   * what issues actually qualify as regression
>