I don’t think the R4L project is for naught or is impeding progress. I see their good faith and their efforts. A split codebase can just be chopped off at the base and business can move on as usual at any point.
If Linux kernel maintainers are against potential improvements being found to the existing C code as a result of parallel development, then perhaps they should require the Rust developers to suggest what the added/changed code could look like in C (if possible) and their reasons for changing the implementation in Rust before they can push their implementation (forcing R4L to shoulder the brunt of the work) - or force R4L to stick to close-approximations and working within the existing system to properly change existing functionality through established processes.
I apologize that I misrepresented his arguments, I of course meant to say that his problem was a split codebase and I understood as much, I just misspoke. Other comments have enlightened me to better understand his arguments and concerns since I posted, as well.
You: […] have been generally trying to jam their code everywhere
I suppose your earlier statement was just stuck in my head, and I was wondering to what extent they have “infected” the codebase with Rust.
And I learned about the manual when a creator I was linked was talking about how there are parallels between the manual and the decline/failure of the U.S. education system, but I similarly disagreed with them that the issues of the U.S. education system are due to internal or external sabotage (through any methods described in the manual, whether intentional sabotage or not) or anything close to it. This was before Trump.
I don’t think that rust in the kernel is for naught or impeding progress. I think the patterns of expanding the scope of conversation to the absolutely philosophical level that some rust mailing list exchanges have done and kicking decisions up the chain or requesting a set of accommodations be made to the existing processes and methods fall broadly into the tactics outlined in the simple field sabotage manual.
I think it’s that behavior that isn’t going to get anywhere or solve problems.
I don’t think that the kernel codebase has been infected with rust. I think that especially after Linus said “sure, see what happens” to the suggestion of taking in rust work rust devs have been making tons of commits and sometimes it’s accepted, sometimes it’s rejected and often a border is created and there’s friction along it like this example.
I don’t think the R4L project is for naught or is impeding progress. I see their good faith and their efforts. A split codebase can just be chopped off at the base and business can move on as usual at any point.
If Linux kernel maintainers are against potential improvements being found to the existing C code as a result of parallel development, then perhaps they should require the Rust developers to suggest what the added/changed code could look like in C (if possible) and their reasons for changing the implementation in Rust before they can push their implementation (forcing R4L to shoulder the brunt of the work) - or force R4L to stick to close-approximations and working within the existing system to properly change existing functionality through established processes.
I apologize that I misrepresented his arguments, I of course meant to say that his problem was a split codebase and I understood as much, I just misspoke. Other comments have enlightened me to better understand his arguments and concerns since I posted, as well.
I suppose your earlier statement was just stuck in my head, and I was wondering to what extent they have “infected” the codebase with Rust.
And I learned about the manual when a creator I was linked was talking about how there are parallels between the manual and the decline/failure of the U.S. education system, but I similarly disagreed with them that the issues of the U.S. education system are due to internal or external sabotage (through any methods described in the manual, whether intentional sabotage or not) or anything close to it. This was before Trump.
I don’t think that rust in the kernel is for naught or impeding progress. I think the patterns of expanding the scope of conversation to the absolutely philosophical level that some rust mailing list exchanges have done and kicking decisions up the chain or requesting a set of accommodations be made to the existing processes and methods fall broadly into the tactics outlined in the simple field sabotage manual.
I think it’s that behavior that isn’t going to get anywhere or solve problems.
I don’t think that the kernel codebase has been infected with rust. I think that especially after Linus said “sure, see what happens” to the suggestion of taking in rust work rust devs have been making tons of commits and sometimes it’s accepted, sometimes it’s rejected and often a border is created and there’s friction along it like this example.