On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:28 PM, Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org wrote:
If you know of the fix, fine. But clearly people DID NOT KNOW. So reverting was the right choice.
.. and this is obviously different in stable and in mainline.
For example, I start reverting very aggressively only at the end of a release. If I get a bisected bug report in the last week, I generally revert without much argument, unless the author of the patch has an immediate fix.
In contrast, during the merge window and the early rc's, I'm perfectly happy to say "ok, let's see if somebody can fix this" and not really consider a revert.
But the -stable tree?
Seriously, what do you expect them to do if they get a report that a commit they added to the stable tree regresses?
"Revert first, ask questions later" is definitely a very sane model there.
Linus