On 22.03.21 19:32, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:18 AM Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> I even requested a >> "linux-regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" a while later, but didn't hear >> anything back; and, sadly, about the same time I started having trouble >> finding spare time for working on regression tracking. :-/ > > Honestly, I'd much prefer the name 'linux-regressions' as being much > more targeted than 'linux-issues'. That only solves one of the two problem I'm trying to solve (albeit the one that is more important to me). That way users still have no easy way to query for reports about issues that are no regressions – say something is broken and they have no idea if it once worked or never worked at all. > Make it clear that the list is only > for regressions that people can describe some way, rather than some > general "I have issues with xyz". > > The more clear-cut the list is, the better, I think. 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... Ciao, Thorsten
