Linus Torvalds writes: (Summary) wrote:
You're still not getting it.
You're still not getting it.
The "didn't go far enough" means that the bug fix is *BUGGY*. There is no such thing as "but the fix was more important than the bug it introduced".
the bug it introduced".
This is why we started with the whole "actively revert things that introduce regressions". Because people always kept claiming that "but but I fixed a worse bug, and it's better to fix the worse bug even if it then introduces another problem, because the other problem is lesser".
lesser".
NO.
NO.
We're better off making *no* progress, than making "unsteady progress".
[...]
"didn't go far enough".You're still not getting it.
You're still not getting it.
The "didn't go far enough" means that the bug fix is *BUGGY*. There is no such thing as "but the fix was more important than the bug it introduced".
the bug it introduced".
This is why we started with the whole "actively revert things that introduce regressions". Because people always kept claiming that "but but I fixed a worse bug, and it's better to fix the worse bug even if it then introduces another problem, because the other problem is lesser".
lesser".
NO.
NO.
We're better off making *no* progress, than making "unsteady progress".