Not that the article did a great job highlighting all of the good reasons that I and others pushed back against this but... It's not like this is a small code

Not that the article did a great job highlighting all of the good reasons that I and others pushed back against this but... It's not like this is a small code base that's already free of warnings. This is a massive code base under the most extreme churn, with 10^6000 configurations, supported by many versions of two different also-fast moving compilers adding more diagnostics to -Wall, with patches getting backported to forks ("stable"), without any CI or processes in place requiring any soak time on patches. (There are quite a few CI systems, but they don't gate merging; linux-next exists as an integration tree, but some patches skip it or spend a day or two before the merge window). It's ok to not be sympathetic, but you really don't understand what we're dealing with here.