Lines Matching +full:build +full:- +full:tools +full:- +full:and +full:- +full:docs +full:- +full:debian
1 .. SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR CC-BY-4.0)
7 *We don't cause regressions* -- this document describes what this "first rule of
9 Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-regressions.rst, which covers the topic from a
10 user's point of view; if you never read that text, go and at least skim over it
21 loop by immediately sending at least a brief "Reply-all" with the list
30 introduced v5.13..v5.14-rc1``. If not, send a reply (with the regressions
39 #regzbot introduced: v5.13..v5.14-rc1
45 mandated by Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst and
58 -----------------------------------
64 Ensure the Linux kernel's regression tracker and others subscribers of the
69 it into the loop by sending at least a brief "Reply-all" with the list CCed;
76 Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst.
85 #regzbot ^introduced: v5.13..v5.14-rc1
88 you can specify a range using commit-ids as well or state a single commit-id
111 remember to do what Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst,
112 :ref:`Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst <development_posting>`, and
113 Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst already explain in more detail:
125 All this is expected from you and important when it comes to regression, as
128 tools and scripts used by other kernel developers or Linux distributions; one of
129 these tools is regzbot, which heavily relies on the "Link:" tags to associate
132 Expectations and best practices for fixing regressions
143 * Continue running an outdated and thus potentially insecure kernel for more
145 should be less than two. And it ought to be just a few days, if the issue is
146 severe or affects many users -- either in general or in prevalent
162 till the end of the cycle, as the issue might discourage or prevent users and
171 bothering many users -- either in general or in prevalent conditions like a
176 backport); if the culprit became known early during a week and is simple to
181 regression is something people can live with easily for a while -- like a
190 * Always consider reverting the culprit, as it's often the quickest and least
192 variant later: that should be straight-forward, as most of the code went
201 tangly. Do the same in precarious or urgent cases -- especially if the
211 a new mainline release, send Linus a mail with the usual lists and people in
213 the fix straight from the list. He then himself can make the call and when
217 Regarding stable and longterm kernels:
229 mainline as well -- and if that seems likely, take hold of the report. If in
234 mainline; when appropriate thus involve Linus to fast-track the fix (see
240 this is especially advisable during merge windows and shortly thereafter, as
246 to account for the time it takes to get fixes tested, reviewed, and merged by
247 Linus, ideally with them being in linux-next at least briefly. Hence, if a
254 of regression fixes. Thus evaluate if skipping linux-next is an option for
256 usual when needed. And try to avoid holding onto regression fixes over
257 weekends -- especially when the fix is marked for backporting.
261 ----------------------------------------------------------------
268 search in Linux distributions and Git forges. Also consider asking other
276 merged, tell the Linux kernel's regression tracker and the regressions mailing
284 Check out Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-regressions.rst, it covers a lot
304 More about regression tracking and regzbot
305 ------------------------------------------
308 Why the Linux kernel has a regression tracker, and why is regzbot used?
318 Earlier attempts to manually track regressions have shown it's an exhausting and
334 reporters and developers. In fact, only reporters are burdened with an extra
348 Torvalds partly rely on regzbot's tracking in their work -- for example when
356 Ideally yes: we are all humans and easily forget problems when something more
357 important unexpectedly comes up -- for example a bigger problem in the Linux
360 immediately write a fix and commit it to a tree regularly merged to the affected
366 Check `regzbot's web-interface <https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/regzbot/>`_
370 few hours before Linus usually publishes new (pre-)releases.
376 repositories of linux-next, mainline, and stable/longterm.
390 use cases and thus might be noticed by users; hence, please don't involve
417 the issue or a fix are discussed -- for example the posting of a patch fixing
422 Monitoring only works for lore.kernel.org and bugzilla.kernel.org; regzbot
435 #regzbot fixed-by: 1f2e3d4c5d
439 #regzbot dup-of: https://lore.kernel.org/all/30th.anniversary.repost@klaava.Helsinki.FI/
445 Is there more to tell about regzbot and its commands?
448 More detailed and up-to-date information about the Linux
451 contains a `getting started guide <https://gitlab.com/knurd42/regzbot/-/blob/main/docs/getting_star…
452 and `reference documentation <https://gitlab.com/knurd42/regzbot/-/blob/main/docs/reference.md>`_
456 ----------------------------------
461 * From `2017-10-26 (1/2)
474 - we don't cause regressions
476 and the corollary is that when regressions *do* occur, we admit to
477 them and fix them, instead of blaming user space.
480 three weeks means that I will revert, and I will stop pulling apparmor
484 * From `2017-10-26 (2/2)
488 and simply not have to worry about it.
494 There have been exceptions, but they are few and far between, and they
495 generally have some major and fundamental reasons for having happened,
496 that were basically entirely unavoidable, and people _tried_hard_ to
498 after it is decades old and nobody uses it with modern kernels any
500 and people actually depended on that fundamentally broken model. Maybe
502 flag day for very core and fundamental reasons.
504 And notice that this is very much about *breaking* peoples environments.
506 Behavioral changes happen, and maybe we don't even support some
512 see everything they used to see, and so behavior is clearly different,
517 reverted. And it gets fixed in the *kernel*. Not by saying "well, fix
523 And I seriously will refuse to take code from people who do not
524 understand and honor this very simple rule.
528 And yes, I realize that the kernel is "special" in this respect. I'm
531 I have seen, and can point to, lots of projects that go "We need to
534 do what you want to do, and you have to change to that new better
535 way", and I simply don't think that's acceptable outside of very early
542 about internal kernel API's, and the people who do that then also
543 obviously have to fix up all the in-kernel users of that API. Nobody
544 can say "I now broke the API you used, and now _you_ need to fix it
547 And we simply do not break user space.
549 * From `2020-05-21
550 …<https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wiVi7mSrsMP=fLXQrXK_UimybW=ziLOwSzFTtoXUacWVQ@mail.gmail.com/>`…
563 Now, reality is never entirely black-and-white. So we've had things
568 And obviously, if users take years to even notice that something
571 handful of users, and they can use a kernel command line to work
575 code was in staging or because the man-page said something else) is
582 any changes to an API you like - as long as nobody notices.
585 API's, and not about the phase of the moon.
589 * From `2017-11-05
590 …<https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFzUvbGjD8nQ-+3oiMBx14c_6zOj2n7KLN3UsJ-qsd4Dcw@mail.gmail.com/>`…
592 And our regression rule has never been "behavior doesn't change".
599 So clearly behavior changes all the time and we don't consider that a
606 * From `2018-08-03
611 We do not regress, and we do not regress exactly because your are 100% wrong.
613 And the reason you state for your opinion is in fact exactly *WHY* you
616 Your "good reasons" are pure and utter garbage.
619 the kernel and never have to worry about it.
635 they get found, they get fixed, and it has nothing to do with "we
643 the point. As far as the USER was concerned, it wasn't buggy - it
647 maybe it worked because the user didn't notice - again, it doesn't
653 It's basically saying "I took something that worked, and I broke it,
657 And without users, your program is not a program, it's a pointless
666 And dammit, we upgrade the kernel ALL THE TIME without upgrading any
667 other programs at all. It is absolutely required, because flag-days
668 and dependencies are horribly bad.
670 And it is also required simply because I as a kernel developer do not
671 upgrade random other tools that I don't even care about as I develop
672 the kernel, and I want any of my users to feel safe doing the same
678 * From `2021-06-05
679 …<https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wiUVqHN76YUwhkjZzwTdjMMJf_zN4+u7vEJjmEGh3recw@mail.gmail.com/>`…
688 * From `2011-05-06 (1/3)
689 <https://lore.kernel.org/all/BANLkTim9YvResB+PwRp7QTK-a5VNg2PvmQ@mail.gmail.com/>`_::
693 And if binaries don't use the interface to parse the format (or just
694 parse it wrongly - see the fairly recent example of adding uuid's to
697 And regressions get reverted, unless there are security issues or
708 You could help fix the tools, and try to avoid the compatibility
711 From `2011-05-06 (2/3)
717 From `2011-05-06 (3/3)
720 We have programs that use that ABI and thus it's a regression if they break.
722 …* From `2012-07-06 <https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFwnLJ+0sjx92EGREGTWOx84wwKaraSzpTNJwPVV8edw8…
724 > Now this got me wondering if Debian _unstable_ actually qualifies as a
728 of people run Debian unstable
730 * From `2019-09-15
731 …<https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wiP4K8DRJWsCo=20hn_6054xBamGKF2kPgUzpB5aMaofA@mail.gmail.com/>…
733 One _particularly_ last-minute revert is the top-most commit (ignoring
734 the version change itself) done just before the release, and while
739 and did it very well. In fact it did it _so_ well that the much
740 improved IO patterns it caused then ended up revealing a user-visible
745 example of what counts as a regression, and what the whole "no
747 API's, and it didn't introduce any new bugs. But it ended up exposing
748 another problem, and as such caused a kernel upgrade to fail for a
751 The point here being that we revert based on user-reported _behavior_,
753 The problem was really pre-existing, and it just didn't happen to
755 happened to expose an old bug, and people had grown to depend on the
758 And never fear, we'll re-introduce the fix that improved on the IO
763 patches by three different developers being discussed, and there might
766 re-introduced (perhaps even backported as a stable patch) once we have
769 Take-away from the whole thing: it's not about whether you change the
770 kernel-userspace ABI, or fix a bug, or about whether the old code
779 end-of-content
781 This text is available under GPL-2.0+ or CC-BY-4.0, as stated at the top
782 of the file. If you want to distribute this text under CC-BY-4.0 only,
783 please use "The Linux kernel developers" for author attribution and link
785 …rg/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/plain/Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst
788 is available under CC-BY-4.0, as versions of this text that were processed
789 (for example by the kernel's build system) might contain content taken from