4 ms·

The page uses "our" and "we" a bunch of times, but doesn't say who this "we" is. The implication from the "Contact" page seems to be that this is some "Rust for

The page uses "our" and "we" a bunch of times, but doesn't say who this "we" is. The implication from the "Contact" page seems to be that this is some "Rust for Linux" group that may or may not be well defined. Which is fine, but then the document also doesn't cite most of the things it states, and isn't always clear on what's established fact/standard and what's this group's opinion. For eg. > Should maintainers treat Rust code up to the same standards? > Ideally, and eventually, yes. However, when they are starting out, not necessarily. Sections like this have no indicator for whether this is opinion they are stating, an argument they're presenting, or an already-decided kernel policy that they're citing. --- > On the costs side, [...] most Rust language features we used were stabilized The fact that this has to be specified - and still qualified with "most" - is a big part of the problem with this.

steveklabnik 2y ago
> The implication from the "Contact" page seems to be that this is some "Rust for Linux" group that may or may not be well defined. It says: > For other matters, please feel free to contact the maintainers via email. Which links to https://docs.kernel.org/process/maintainers.html#rust https://docs.kernel.org/process/maintainers.html#rust which has a list of people. There is also https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/blob/rust-next/MAINTAINERS#L20646-L20671 https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/blob/rust-next/MAINT... which is the in-tree documentation of who maintainers are. > The fact that this has to be specified - and still qualified with "most" - is a big part of the problem with this. For a very long time, linux wouldn't even compile with clang, becuase they use gcc extensions. These are effectively the same idea as nightly features. The kernel has never used standard C. Nowadays clang has enough support and keeps it going. I agree with you that I personally would much prefer that they were on 100% stable Rust, but the Linux folks in general are way more fine with depending on specific versions for the build.

steveklabnik 2y ago

> The implication from the "Contact" page seems to be that this is some "Rust for Linux" group that may or may not be well defined. It says: > For other matters, please feel free to contact the maintainers via email. Which links to https://docs.kernel.org/process/maintainers.html#rust https://docs.kernel.org/process/maintainers.html#rust which has a list of people. There is also https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/blob/rust-next/MAINTAINERS#L20646-L20671 https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/blob/rust-next/MAINT... which is the in-tree documentation of who maintainers are. > The fact that this has to be specified - and still qualified with "most" - is a big part of the problem with this. For a very long time, linux wouldn't even compile with clang, becuase they use gcc extensions. These are effectively the same idea as nightly features. The kernel has never used standard C. Nowadays clang has enough support and keeps it going. I agree with you that I personally would much prefer that they were on 100% stable Rust, but the Linux folks in general are way more fine with depending on specific versions for the build.