Linus Torvalds writes: (Summary) wrote:
See my other email.
See my other email.
If your'e stable maintainer, and you get a report of a commit that causes problems, your first reaction probably really should just be "revert it".
"revert it".
You can always re-apply it later, but a patch that causes problems is absolutely very much suspect, and automatically should make any stable maintainer go "that needs much more analysis". The author can then get notified by the other stable automation, and at that point argue for "yeah, it was buggy, but together with this other fix it's really important".
other fix it's really important".
But even when that is the case, I really don't see that the author should complain about it being reverted.
[...]
reverted in stable, not mainline.See my other email.
See my other email.
If your'e stable maintainer, and you get a report of a commit that causes problems, your first reaction probably really should just be "revert it".
"revert it".
You can always re-apply it later, but a patch that causes problems is absolutely very much suspect, and automatically should make any stable maintainer go "that needs much more analysis". The author can then get notified by the other stable automation, and at that point argue for "yeah, it was buggy, but together with this other fix it's really important".
other fix it's really important".
But even when that is the case, I really don't see that the author should complain about it being reverted.