Linus definitely needed anger management. But, nevertheless, I don't know the full context. Linus might have repeatedly emphasize "We do not break userspace" t

Linus definitely needed anger management. But, nevertheless, I don't know the full context. Linus might have repeatedly emphasize "We do not break userspace" to the point he is red-faced in this particular incident. Having a bad commit to a project you are responsible for, with a large number of users, is frustrating. Not to mention that Linux is not just a responsibility, but a life-work. What should he do instead of this? Block bad commit author from contributing to Linux forever? A programmer blaming the user for the programmer's mistake is not less callous of an action. Probably better or worse, because it is wrapped with courteous words, which imply that the programmer is right. What if this happens on a mission critical machine that deals with life-and-death situation? Whose head is gonna end up in the masses' pitchfork? I've been in both end, the incompetent contributor and the project owner who feels there is not enough competencies in the room. I'm sure there are many others who still have to deal with this dynamic. "We do not break userspace" may be old story, but the dynamic between is still relevant to this day and there is a lot to learn from the incident.