I don't think it's particularly vengeful. I think it's a pretty natural result of the broken trust. Yeah, the authors are claiming those past 190 patches are f

I don't think it's particularly vengeful. I think it's a pretty natural result of the broken trust. Yeah, the authors are claiming those past 190 patches are fine... but they also essentially did the same thing when they submitted the intentionally bad patches too. So the question is, how much do you trust them right now? And given they just submitted intentionally bad patches, I don't think it's very surprising they don't have a whole lot of trust. And if you don't trust them, then you've got 190 patches active from an untrusted source with a history of submitting bad patches. That's not a particularly good situation. Why wouldn't you revert them? The specifics of the situation make the whole thing substantially murkier, in my (entirely unrelated) opinion. But take a broad enough view, and this is pretty much the default path. However the specifics make this a bit of an oddly exceptional situation, all things considered.