[dodobirdlord]

Not really, no. Most of Actix's unsafe code was unnecessary, and had largely been replaced with equivalently performant safe code over a long series of unpleasantly adversarial patches leading up to the final debacle. Much of the ire directed at the maintainer grew out of an impression that the maintainer was using unsafe to cut corners instead of finding alternative safe solutions. I believe that at the time of project's deletion it had only low 10's of remaining uses of unsafe.

[logicchains]

That's quite unfortunate then, the ecosystem losing its fastest web server because of its use of unsafe when the use of unsafe wasn't even necessary for performance.

[bluejekyll]

Well, “the community” is not as a whole happy about the outcome or the way this issue was handled in any way shape or form. I think Steve did a really good job of articulating the undercurrent behind this.

People should be allowed to be free of harassment. I think everyone would have been better off in this case if the individuals who were so concerned about the unnecessary safety, forked Actix and had a SafeActix, that was maintained without the usage they were concerned about.

If the maintainer isn’t going to accept your patches, then it’s time to decide how to move forward without needing to resort to harassment.