On 27.03.23 19:26, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > We don't state explicitly that reverts need to be submitted > as a patch. It occasionally comes up. > [...] > +In cases where full revert is needed the revert has to be submitted > +as a patch to the list with a commit message explaining the technical > +problems with the reverted commit. Reverts should be used as a last resort, > +when original change is completely wrong; incremental fixes are preferred. > + FWIW, I see how this is well meant, but I'm not really happy with the last sentence, as one of the problems I notice when handling regression is: it sometimes takes weeks to get regressions fixed that could have been solved quickly by reverting the culprit (and reapplying an improved version of the change or the change together and a fix later). That's why Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst strongly suggest to revert changes that cause regressions if the problem can't be fixed quickly -- especially if the change made it into a proper release. The two texts thus now not slightly contradict each other. I noticed that this change was already applied, but how would you feel about changing the second sentence into something like this maybe? ``` Use reverts to quickly fix regressions that otherwise would take too long to resolve. Apart from this reverts should be used as a last resort, when the original change is completely wrong; incremental fixes are preferred. ``` Or maybe this? ``` Incremental fixes in general are preferred over reverts, but the latter are useful to quickly fix regressions that otherwise would take too long to resolve. Apart from this reverts should be used as a last resort, when the original change is completely wrong. ``` Ciao, Thorsten
