> A reversion policy that's too trigger-happy can leave you unable to > make forward progress on an important patch. At the very least you'd > need to write in stone that a patch can be reinstalled if the > reporter of the problem is unwilling to assist in debugging or > testing candidate patches.
Although I certainly agree that the tree shouldn't remain broken, I'm also sympathetic to the need to be able to have an environment in which the developer can debug the patch because it presumably didn't fail in their environment if they commited it.
