Thorsten Leemhuis <li...@leemhuis.info> writes: > +In case you performed a successful bisection, use the title of the change > that > +introduced the regression as the second part of your subject. Make the report > +also mention the commit id of the culprit. For tracking purposes, add a line > +like the following that contains both pieces of information, but with the > +commit id shortened to 12 characters:: > + > + #regzb introduced: 94a632d91ad1 ("usc: xhbi-foo: check bar_params > earlier") > + > +In case of an unsuccessful bisection, make your report mention the latest > tested > +version that's working fine (say 5.7) and the oldest where the issue occurs > (say > +5.8-rc1). For tracking purposes add a line expressing it like this:: > + > + #regzb introduced: v5.7..v5.8-rc1
I kind of share Greg's concern that people aren't going to want to do this; it could even be seen as an impediment to reporting problems in general. If you *really* want random users to input this sort of information, you may well end up creating some sort of web page to step them through it. Also, though, as I understand it the system that will interpret these lines does not yet exist. Experience tells me that, as this system comes into existence, you will have a good chance of deciding that you want the syntax to look different anyway. So I would personally hold off on telling people to include directives like this until you have something that works with them. But that's just me... if this is the way it's going to work then the docs should of course reflect that. Thanks, jon