The author says "reverting smaller diffs as a roll-forward is more verifiable" near the end of the article. I agree the title makes this a bit confusing, but I don't think he's arguing that the only way to recover is to write a patch under pressure.
By partial revert, I'm imagining that three people have changesets (A, B, C, in that order) that have been deployed. You notice that A broke and you make A' to revert it. I think the author is arguing that it is easier to review A' to see if it is a safe change than it is to verify that A', B', and C' (the full revert) are safe to revert.
In other words, even if you don't use version control to record that you reverted A, B, and C, you still effectively do that by reverting in full. You just know that the combination of A', B', and C' was safe when it was deployed.
Is that what you're imagining or are we talking about different things? (I don't have strong opinions about this, I just want to make sure I understand your perspective (: )