On Tue, 2021-03-23 at 12:20 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 20:25:15 +0100 > Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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... > > I think the bulk of user issues are going to be regressions. Although > you may be in a better position to know for sure, but at least for > me, wearing my "user" hat, the thing that gets me the most is > upgrading to a new kernel and suddenly something that use to work no > longer does. And that is the definition of a regression. My test > boxes still run old distros (one is running fedora 13). These are the > boxes that catch the most issues, and if they do, they are pretty > much guaranteed to be a regression. > > I like the "linux-regressions" mailing list idea. Can't we use the fancy features of public inbox to get the best of both worlds? Have the bug list (or even a collection of lists) but make the linux-regressions one a virtual list keying off an imap flag which a group of people control. That way anything that is flagged as a regression appears in that public inbox. I assume the search can be quite wide so we could flag a regression on any list indexed by lore? James
