8 ms·
This is unfortunate, but before pointing fingers, it's worth putting things into perspective. The linked "thin blue line" message[1] also says this: > One of
by imiric 2y ago
This is unfortunate, but before pointing fingers, it's worth putting things into perspective.
The linked "thin blue line" message[1] also says this:
> One of the things which gets very frustrating from the maintainer's perspective is development teams that are only interested in their pet feature, and we know, through very bitter experience, that 95+% of the time, once the code is accepted, the engineers which contribute the code will disappear, never to be seen again. As a result, a very common dynamic is that maintainers will exercise the one and only power which they have --- which is to refuse to accept code until it is pretty much perfect --- since once we accept the code, we instantly lose all leverge, and the contributors will be disappear, and we will be left with the responsibility of cleanig up the mess. (And once there are users, we can't even rip out the code, since that would be a user-visible regression.)
Which seems very reasonable. Maintainers shouldn't be expected to support a feature indefinitely just because a 3rd party is interested in upstreaming it. In the case of Rust for Linux and the Asahi project specifically, I imagine this would entail a much larger effort than any other contribution. So just based on this alone, the bar for entry for Asahi-related features should be much higher.
Perhaps this is ultimately a failure of leadership as TFA claims, but it would be foolish to blame the Linux maintainers or its development process, and take sides either way. Maybe what Asahi is trying to accomplish just isn't a good fit for mainline Linux, and they would be better served by maintaining a hard fork, or developing their own kernel.
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250208204416.GL1130956@mit.edu/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250208204416.GL1130956@mit.ed...
- arp242 2y agoI don't really follow what's objectionable about Ted's email, or why it's being singled out. It matches my experience as an open source maintainer pretty accurately. It's also pretty constructive (it goes on to lay out a plan on how to constructively proceed and make everyone happy).
- o11c 2y ago[flagged]
- arp242 2y ago> widely understood to mean "and this is why police should be allowed to shoot black people without being questioned about it". Or maybe it's not as "widely understood" to mean that?
- kllrnohj 2y agoWhat's objectionable is primarily the phrase "thin blue line" - it's highly politically charged language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_blue_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_blue_line One would hope it was just a particularly bad gaffe, but it could also be an insight into how he actually views himself as a maintainer which is not great.
- arp242 2y agoEh, right. The "far right" seem to appropriate every other thing these days. I can't keep up. In the context of a long-term good faith maintainer in what is clearly a constructive good faith email, assigning bad faith meaning to a simple phrase is in itself a bad faith action IMHO.
- CRConrad 2y ago> Eh, right. The "far right" seem to appropriate every other thing these days. I can't keep up. Is it really appropriating anything, though, in this case? Seems this is more people ascribing the expression to a particular political camp in order to taint T'so by association with said camp. (Sorry, if you were being ironic or sarcastic in your wording, I failed to pick it up.)
- bigstrat2003 2y agoIt is most certainly not politically charged language. It's an anodyne statement referring to being a small force keeping bad things from happening. That's all.
- fastball 2y agoThe "blue" is specifically about police, so it is not as generic as you make it out to be.
- CRConrad 2y agoThe expression exists in only two colour variants, blue and (the original) red. If he'd used the other, you'd probably have pointed out what a colonialist Victorian asshole T'so is, for identifying with the 19th century British army? The expression itself is inherently quite generic; all the claims about it being "specifically about" anything are just people reading stuff into it.