Re: kernel.org tooling update

["Theodore Tso" <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 02:30:37PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> * How many kernel subsystems have a strong interest in a bug tracking
> solution at all[2]? And how many of those might be happy by using some
> external issue tracker, like those in github (like Rust for Linux,
> thesofproject, and a few others do), gitlab (either directly, like
> apparmor, or self-hosted, like the DRM subsystem)?

One of the discussions we had (both during and after Konstantin's
tools session) was that all we really need is some kind of way of
associating state with a set of URL's to lore --- this could be used
to indicate "this is a bug report" and a set of flags "this bug has
been resolved / needs more information / needs triaging, etc".  A
different set of states is also what we would need as a replacement
for patchwork --- this patch series is a not applicable for a
subsystem, has been applied, has been rejected, etc.

This is quite similar to what you've done with your regzbot dashboard,
actually.

> FWIW, development of my regression tracker (regzbot) and me using it to
> track regressions nearly stalled but is slowly restarting. Would be good
> if we could work together here, as there is some overlap -- and
> regression tracking afaics is something that a lot of people want and
> consider important. And regzbot is already capable of monitoring reports
> in various places (lore, gitlab, github, bugzilla); so if we decide that
> we don't need a tracker for the kernel as a whole, it might already do
> nearly everything for the bugs where tracking really helps a lot.

  	 	    	    	       		- Ted