Binder🅅

@luis_in_brief@social.coop @corbet@social.kernel.org @Edent@mastodon.social Not quite... There are methods for maintaining dual language codebases like this. The rust folks don't want to follow those method and would rather steamroll the whole process. IMO they were correct to push back... happy to chat more indepth on this one.

@corbet@social.kernel.org @Edent@mastodon.social @luis_in_brief@social.coop "steamrolling" being a strong term. More they were pushing for code where it wasn't wanted. Maintainers should not be "forced" to accept code, and indeed, rust code should 'generally' be kept separate. This of course causes a whole lot of other issues, but that is what you get for having a dual language codebase. The technical methods to handle these sorts of projects are not complex, the political aspects of course are not. Many years of OSS have taught me what my strengths are, and political issues are not among them. If I could give advice (which would not be accepted)... it would be to look at how enterprise handles multi language codebases.