[uecker]

If it is not his area, he should have no power to stop it anyway, so it is even more strange to call it "sabotage". Or has any kernel developer the right to nack anything? This seems unlikely to me. So then it is just some disagreement.

[steveklabnik]

You have to remember that Linux development isn't done like most open source projects where there's one upstream tree everyone sends patches to. Linus pulls in whatever code he wants. A nack means that Hellwig won't pull it into his tree, but that doesn't mean it can't go in someone else's, and end up upstream anyway. The only reason he was even cc'd on the patch is because he's the relevant subsystem maintainer being wrapped, as a courtesy.

[uecker]

As I said, the idea that this is then "sabotage" is completely ridiculous and just shows how toxic this maintainer was that now removed himself.

[pulsartwin]

There are multiple comments that meet the exact definition of sabotage. If this:

"You might not like my answer, but I will do everything I can do to stop this."

is not intent to sabotage (even if it might not be successful as Linus could pull in the patch anyway), then what possibly could be?

Pointing out the ridiculousness of comments like this and suggesting the R4L folks push forward while ignoring them doesn't scream toxicity. Refusing to compromise with the R4L devs and calling the additions a 'cancer' has expectedly caused a stir.

[uecker]

I think you need to look up "sabotage" in the dictionary.

[pulsartwin]

sabotage /ˈsabətɑː(d)ʒ/ verb

1. deliberately destroy, damage, or *obstruct* (something), especially for political or military advantage.

2. to intentionally prevent the success of a plan or action.

Definitions from Oxford, Collins, and Cambridge all fit the bill. Even dictionary.com has "any undermining of a cause."

[uecker]

Yes, and now compare to what happened. You could differentiate between words and actions and what exactly was affected. For someone to "sabotage the Rust experiment in the kernel" you would need to determinate that that person did something that a) effectively damaged / obstructed the project (which - if GP is right about that that person has no power to stop the merging of the patch anyway - is a dubious claim), etc.

Misrepresenting the voicing of opposition to some process as "sabotage" seems completely out of line for a any kind of community project. If you define things so loosely, then every side in any disagreement could always label the other side of doing "sabotage". This reflects the sentiment of many Rust people to "be on the right side of history" where everybody else automatically is wrong and even voicing objects and criticism is already "sabotaging" on the true path.