I'm starting to wonder about the use cases for both of those keywords.
Personally, I mostly ignore the "regression" keyword. As a developer looking for bugs to work on, I've found it not very useful. At a given point in time, most regression bugs are not easier, more severe, or more important than the others, nor are there (to my knowledge) people who work best on regression bugs.
If my name appears in a bugzilla comment (usually because my patch broke something), it gets caught by a gmail filter and I pay attention. If a patch I write causes a regression, it suggests something is wrong or incomplete about the patch, and I should look at it while it's fresh.
(I assume that such monitoring is not usually necessary because the patch author will be CC'd. I am unusual because the email address I use to send patches is not the same address I use on bugzilla. Also I use gmail filters obsessively.)
The patch that switched gdiplus to builtin by default is an exception. It tells me nothing new. I don't mind seeing the regression keyword on those bugs because I don't use it, and anyway I pay attention to all the gdiplus bugs.
So, at least for those I cause, it helps if regressions are found and bisected as soon as possible, so that the original patch is fresh in my head. I know Wylda has been bisecting regressions that others have reported, and if adding a keyword makes that easier, I'm all for it. Does it?
Perhaps the ability to search for non-bisected regressions would be useful, since bisecting is something that anyone with the ability to build wine and access to the software can do. I believe it's also time-critical, because: * As time goes on, it gets harder to build old versions of Wine on modern distributions, because new versions of build tools tend to break things. Wine accumulates build fixes that are not present in old versions. * The more time passes since the patch was originally written, the more likely it is that the author has moved on. * Even when the author is still around, it's easier to work on recent regressions than old ones.
Perhaps, if we could easily see which regressions still need to be bisected, someone could make it a goal that all newly-reported regressions are bisected within a few months. When an unbisected regression starts to get stale, perhaps someone could post something on wine-users like "Does anyone own <product name>? It has a regression that needs bisecting."
But that's not something I would do. I'm a developer, not a community manager.
Anyway, I think we should talk about how people use the regression keyword now, and how they would use this new keyword, and that should determine whether it gets added.