I think there are a number of ways the maintainer could have protected themselves without making it actively worse for the community. I would even predict that this decision makes them likely to get even more abuse, though of course I would never condone that.

> I think there are a number of ways the maintainer could have protected themselves without making it actively worse for the community.

If said community was the one causing the problem, what would be the point of that?

The community is not a monolithic entity.

If there are bad apples in the community then the good apples need to speak up and reject them.

Otherwise the bad apples are the apples.

They're referring to the maintainer's conscious decision to reject a patch made in good faith, that fixed the issues that had been pointed out. It was rejected with the statement "this is boring." Do you think this behaviour is justifiable?

> I think you are confused

You sure?

> They're referring to the maintainer's conscious decision to reject a patch made in good faith, that fixed the issues that had been pointed out.

You're misrepresenting the problem. There was never a bug or an issue, only a bunch of opinionated and vocal users who thought that bullying a maintainer is an acceptable way to get him to accept their patches. The maintainer rejected the bullies' actions and in turn the bullies ramped up their attacks, which ultimately convinced the maintainer that closing up shop is the best way to stop having to deal with these bullies.

> You're misrepresenting the problem. There was never a bug or an issue

The story originated from the author of this article [0] posting a bug report issue [1].

Why are you accusing others of misrepresenting the problem while doing so yourself?

0: https://medium.com/@shnatsel/smoke-testing-rust-http-clients...

1: https://archive.is/BEqfM

Please stick with the facts and thus with primary sources. Part of the blame of this shitstorm lies in those who insist in misrepresenting the problem with bullshit blog posts and "he said she said" nonsense.

https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/epszt7/actixnet_unsou...

Unfortunately this is not the first time Rust soundness/unsafe zealots are aggressive and create shitstorms in the community.

I linked to an archive of the GitHub issue in question and the reporter's own blog article about it. Are those not primary sources? And you've linked to Reddit?

It is if your the one maintaining it. It's not like people are paying the person to accept their patches. If they want their patch applied they can fork the project. The maintainer isn't a slave to others.

Under what obligation does the maintainer NEED to accept any patch? It's his project he built. He can build or destroy his work as he sees fit. If you have an issue fork it. This is how things like libreoffice, mariadb, and countless other projects have come to exist.