3 ms·

I'm skeptical of the way the author framed the discussion around his patches, I believe the majority of people out there are genuinely not evil, people don't of

I'm skeptical of the way the author framed the discussion around his patches, I believe the majority of people out there are genuinely not evil, people don't often reject contributions that have clear benefits without reason, and I find it's often best to get said reason straight from the horses mouth. Does anyone have a link to that discussion? I get the sense there is more to that discussion than the author let on in his brief response.

Jach 11y ago
I got the sense too. The message sharing the link to the source describes it as "incomplete and extremely buggy". Was it that way when it was first proposed to the kernel group for integration? If so that seems like a reasonable reason to reject it... I googled for "kernel mailing list managed runtime initiative" and found this: https://lwn.net/Articles/392307/ https://lwn.net/Articles/392307/ Apparently it was never even proposed on the kernel mailing list! But then apparently the code as written wasn't ever meant to be integrated into the kernel upstream but as a sort of PoC that would maybe be a better starting point than going fresh for eventual integration... But there's lots of interesting details, and as I'm reading through the comments, things are coming back, now I remember reading about this in 2010/2011...