<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Open-Source on t0ul</title><link>https://t0ul.com/tags/open-source/</link><description>Recent content in Open-Source on t0ul</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 18 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://t0ul.com/tags/open-source/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>What the patch loop would take</title><link>https://t0ul.com/blog/what-the-patch-loop-would-take/</link><pubDate>Sun, 18 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://t0ul.com/blog/what-the-patch-loop-would-take/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Part of a short series on the patch loop. The &lt;a href="https://t0ul.com/blog/nobody-ships-the-patch-loop/"&gt;second post&lt;/a&gt; found that every product owns a piece of the loop and none owns the whole thing. This post is what the whole thing would look like, built on the open-source parts that already exist.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 id="intro"&gt;Intro&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When I laid the products side by side, the missing pieces were not the exciting ones. Nobody is lacking a scanner, or a patcher, or a way to open a pull request. Those all exist, several of them are free, and they work. What is missing is the connective tissue: the step that takes two scanners&amp;rsquo; disagreeing output and turns it into one list of real findings, the step that decides the smallest safe fix for each, and the step that proves the result after the fact.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>