>On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 08:36:21AM +0000, Michal Bozon wrote: >> I think the justification is: >> >> Why do i even need to revert a patch? Only because something got broken >> by the last syspatch command, that may have applied multiple patches. >> I might not now which patch caused the problem. >> >> If the problematic patch was not the last one from the set, >> reverting with -r does not help, because it reverts single last patch only. >> >> Well, applying `syspatch -r` repeatedly is a sort of solution as well. > >scratching head. > >well, we're talking patches on top of *stable*. >The release is originally rather well tested. >patches on top of that are applied conservatively, only to fix actual >issues. > >I would really start worrying about our process if you actually need >to 'revert patches until you find out which one causes the problem'.
Exactly. If a syspatch sequence doesn't apply to your virgin system, then your system isn't virgin and all bets are off, sorry you screwed it up. This system is intentionally simple, to create robustness via simplicity. I think you are being critical because you think it is amusing.
