Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Jonathan Corbet (corbet@social.kernel.org)'s status on Wednesday, 13-Nov-2024 23:58:58 JST Jonathan Corbet

   in reply to

   • Linus Torvalds
   • Thorsten Leemhuis (acct. 1/4)
   @kernellogger @torvalds I am almost certainly the person who wrote those words. Yes, they could be improved... but note that the text talks about failing to *respond* to the regression, not the revert. That was surely the intent there, and I think it remains true.
   • Embed this notice
     Thorsten Leemhuis (acct. 1/4) (kernellogger@fosstodon.org)'s status on Wednesday, 13-Nov-2024 23:58:59 JST Thorsten Leemhuis (acct. 1/4)

     • Linus Torvalds

     Argh. 🥴

     I (and @torvalds iirc as well) tell everybody "a revert to fix a #LinuxKernel #regression is nothing bad, it's often done to provide more time to fix the problem; once you did so, just resubmit the change."

     And now I just found this in the #Linux #Kernel's documentation[1]:

     '"[…] having a patch pulled as the result of a failure to fix a regression could well make it harder for you to get work merged in the future. […]"'

     Argh. 🥴

     [1] https://docs.kernel.org/process/6.Followthrough.html