[0x457]

> a technical disagreement.

For it to be technical disagreement, there should be _anything_ to back it up. All I've heard is "another language would spread and become unmaintainable" is one, that's just emotions. There is nothing technical about his reasoning on why he doesn't want those patches to land.

> If that's "sabotage" then anyone saying "I don't think we should go ahead with this" is guilty of "sabotage".

Sabotage part is saying "I will do anything to stop rust from landing in Linux code base" (paraphrasing). Calling in cancer just unprofessional and rude, but that's another story...which probably also violates CoC.

[arp242]

> "I will do anything to stop rust from landing in Linux code base" (paraphrasing)

Paraphrasing to the point where it says something completely different than was actually said.

An actual quote is "keep the wrappers in your code instead of making life painful for others". So it's about where and how.

And of course this is a technical disagreement; you just don't agree (which is fine). But please, don't pretend the disagreement doesn't exist.

[0x457]

Disagreement exists, but it's emotional and not technical.

> An actual quote is "keep the wrappers in your code instead of making life painful for others". So it's about where and how.

Literally the same? or you do not include "wrappers" in "rust landing in linux code base" ? Absolutely no one suffers from them landing.

I'm done arguing over this.

[arp242]

> Absolutely no one suffers from them landing.

"Suffers"? No. But "makes the code harder to work on from my perspective"? Well, some people think that it will. And the Rust people are agreeing with that in the very email thread: their solution is "you don't need to write Rust, we can work together on this". Whether that's a good solution is the point of disagreement.

And of course "I don't want Rust landing in Linux code base" is not the same as "I don't want Rust added to this subsystem, I think it should live somewhere else".