Re: [RFC PATCH v1 2/2] docs: reporting-issue: rework the TLDR

[Jonathan Corbet]

Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Rework the TLDR (aka the short guide) for various reasons:
>
> * People had to read it entirely and then act upon what they learned,
>   which from feedback I got was apparently somewhat hard and confusing
>   given everything we expect from bug reporters; this partly was because
>   the first paragraph covered a special case (regression in
>   stable/longterm kernel) and not the main aspect most people cared
>   about when they came to the document.
>
>   Use a step-by-step approach to avoid this.
>
> * Make use of
>   Documentation/admin-guide/verify-bugs-and-bisect-regressions.rst
>
> * The 'quickly report a stable regression to the stable team' approach
>   hardly worked out: most of the time the regression was not known yet.
>   Try a different approach using the regressions list.
>
> * Reports about stable/longterm regressions most of the time were
>   greeted with a brief reply along the lines of 'Is mainline affected as
>   well?'; this is needed to determine who is responsible, so it might as
>   well make the reporter check that before sending the report (which
>   verify-bugs-and-bisect-regressions.rst already tells them to do, too).
>
> Not-signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  .../admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst          | 104 +++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)

>From a quick read, no objections here.

jon