On Sun, 2017-01-15 at 10:54 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 8:11 AM, James Bottomley > <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > We're not reverting a fix that would cause regressions for others. > > Oh HELL YES we are. > > The rule is that we never break old stuff. Some new fix that fixes > something that never used to work, but breaks something else, gets > reverted very aggressively. > > So if a new bugfix or workaround causes problems for existing users, > it gets reverted. The fact that it fixed something else is COMPLETELY > IRRELEVANT. > > We do not do the "one step forward, two steps back" dance. If you > can't fix a bug without breaking old systems, the "fix" gets > reverted. > > Apparently there is already a possible real fix in flight, so I won't > actually do the revert, but I very much want to object to your > statement. > > Reverts happen. Can we compromise on "try not to revert a fix ...". The problem with bugs in regression fixes is that we now have two constituencies: the people who get the regression back if we revert the fix and the people who are bitten by the bug in the original regression fix. In this particular case, I think we should always try to fix the fix because reversion also violates "never break old stuff". There are corner cases, of course, like if the latter constituency is much bigger and the fix is hard to fix, then we might revert and try again. James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
