The threat is pretty clear? "If Rust people don't get this, we will have to part ways." This is an ultimatum? It's crazy girlfriend/boyfriend material? It's ridiculous after one contributor tries something that Linus thinks won't work in the kernel. Ridiculous. Just say no.
The slander as well? "Rust’s community, in aggregate, have developed a reputation." And you know what? The C/C++/Zig/Nim/Haskell/Clojure communities have developed a reputation too, but, gosh, I don't talk about it because I know labeling groups isn't helpful/is completely non-technical.
Was Wedson acting in an untoward way here that in some way exemplifies something significant about the Rust community? No, not really. So, yeah, I think your comment above is a pointless low blow, cheap shot, an excuse to act nasty about some super annoying Rust comment you probably read months ago. And it just sounds like whining to me.
What are you quoting? I don't see this anywhere in the thread.
The nearest I see is:
If you cannot get over the fact that the kernel may have other
requirements that trump any language standards, we really can't work
together.
No one is talking about absolute safety guarantees. I am talking about
specific ones that Rust makes: these are well-documented and formally
defined.
Rust does not yet have a defined memory model. Various academics
and industry professionals are working on various proposals, but
for now, this is an under-defined place in the language.
I was paraphrasing. I didn't want to write a page length comment, and won't here, but there were a few more instances of similar ultimatums (like "Or, you know, if you can't deal with the rules that the kernel requires, then just don't do kernel programming.") And all are similarly ridiculous/dickish. Really no need for such dramatic convulsions, Linus, where Wedson was simply trying to explain the API expectations of the Rust language.
Re: the rest, I think you are conflating Rust's UB guarantees with a specified memory model.
You put it in quotes and didn't mention any paraphrasing. Linus didn't write it.
> Rust's UB guarantees
Can you point out the normative document that provides these guarantees? Rust doesn't have one as far as I know.
I think it's a fair characterization of what was said. Feel free, as everyone is, to read the entire thread again. I'm not a journalist. You have the primary source at your finger tips!
> Can you point out the normative document that provides these guarantees?
You're looking at the Rust reference right? https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/behavior-considered-unde...
Not normative, as stated here[1], linked from the page you cite.
I think inventing Linus quotes is unfair.
Pointing out whatever those are is fine. Linus pointing out the expectations of the Linux kernel is fine too, and no amount of invoking fictional formalisms trumps them.