Typhoon, with all due respect (despite your last sentence), YOU miss the point entirely. If the repaired hull of a boat/racing yacht subsequently fails it is unlikely to be fatal - inconvenient if you have to man the life rafts. Any subsequent failure of a repair in flight is highly likely to be instantaneously catastrophic to the aircraft i.e. in flight break up.
I confess I'm not a composites guru - but I do know that the 787 construction is at the cutting edge of the technology in COMMERCIAL aviation. I know the military has used it for years (decades) BUT the number of cycles that a military aircraft flies compared to a commercial aircraft does not even come close. So we are in uncharted territory w.r.t. historical knowledge of EXTENSIVE (i.e. very large fuselage sections) composite repair on high cycle commercial aircraft.
As someone who regularly straps an aircraft to his backside to earn a living, perhaps you can appreciate my concerns with this "new fangled" technology - I'm cautious by nature - not a bad trait in a pilot IMHO.
It would appear that the 787 has some issues with its electrical systems - with many commenting upon the decision to outsource so much and the consequential lack of oversight being a major factor. There have now been 4 or 5(?) smoke/fire events on the 787 which is unprecedented for a 1 year in service aircraft. That, perhaps, indicates that the development/testing/production/QA has not been as robust as it may have been - or Boeing have just been really unlucky. So forgive me for having nagging doubts (perhaps unfounded) about patching major structural "new" technology components.
It will be interesting to see what Boeings decision is regarding the ET 787. "Patch" it to reinforce (no pun intended) faith in the strength/integrity of the product or replace the entire rear section - "just in case"?