A Sad Day for Rust

Re:A Sad Day for Rust by wbl on Friday January 17, 2020 @10:49AM (#22075637)

Do you think we get software like zlib and libjpeg and BLAS and linpack by people shrugging off working for the community and failing to fix bugs?

Otherwise we get dozens of half broken forks all over the place. That's no fun for anyone.

This wasn't a drive by beg. This was a patch solving real demonstrable problems and at minimum there should have been a transition plan due to basic decency.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Sad Day for Rust by compiler-guy on Friday January 17, 2020 @12:01PM (#22076490)

"The maintainer owes the community something, simply because the community decided to adopt the project."

Doesn't work that way, I'm afraid. The maintainer already gave the community something, and doesn't owe them anything more.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Sad Day for Rust by mratsim on Friday January 17, 2020 @01:15PM (#22077425)

They owe people who write PR basic courtesy, not refusing patches on ground that it is "boring".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Sad Day for Rust by compiler-guy on Friday January 17, 2020 @01:35PM (#22077640)

"Basic courtesy" is one thing. Accepting patches because they don't find them interesting is another thing, is different, and not required.

Giving someone the mere ability to make a PR is already a gift far beyond what the original author owes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Sad Day for Rust by mratsim on Friday January 17, 2020 @06:49PM (#22080946)

I'm not advocating for or against accepting the patch. I'm saying that the tone of the refusal is inappropriate.

[ Parent | on HN ]