"brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 2025-08-23 at 18:30:26, Elijah Newren wrote: >> I don't think that's fair. A quick reminder on the history: There was >> lots of excitement about potentially introducing Rust two years ago at >> our virtual Git contributors conference. Taylor formally proposed >> adopting it on the mailing list a year and a half ago. And at Git >> Merge last year, among those in attendance, there was broad >> significant interest in adopting Rust with unanimous support for >> letting it move forward among those that were present (which, yes, we >> know wasn't everyone). And there's the three rounds so far of this >> patch series. At every discussion where you weren't present, someone >> else would always bring up you and NonStop, and point out how you've >> been a very positive long-term member of the Git community and how >> Rust adoption would likely negatively affect you, which would be >> regrettable. We waited years to adopt Rust precisely (and I believe >> solely) because of your objections. Josh and Calvin even went the >> route of making optional not-even-built-by-default Rust libraries >> (libgit-rs and libgit-sys) when they wanted to add some Rust bindings. >> If years of deference by other community members isn't considered >> taking you seriously, I don't know what is. >> >> I agree that it is disappointing that there isn't a clear way to both >> gain the compelling advantages of Rust while also retaining the full >> current extent of our widespread platform support. It's doubly >> unfortunate since you're such a positive contributing member of the >> community. But not allowing us to ever gain the advantages of Rust is >> problematic too. So, a decision has to be made, one way or the other. > > I think it's worth saying that I do appreciate your (Randall's) positive > contributions as well and I would love some way to continue to support > NonStop as we adopt Rust. To be clear, I care deeply about portability: > I have owned PowerPC, UltraSPARC, MIPS, and ARM hardware, and I test > many of my personal projects on at least Linux, FreeBSD, and NetBSD. > > There is an alternative Rust compiler, mrustc[0], which is written in > C++ and that I have played around with to see if it could meet our > needs. As far as I'm aware, mrustc is intended purely for having a bootstrap path to rustc, not to be a full blown Rust implementation. We discussed the other options in this area in https://lore.kernel.org/git/874iv4gqxv.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx/ and Patrick's reply. I still think it's dubious to move to something where there's only one implementation (and an implementation that moves very fast) when currently we go to pains to support even incomplete C compilers! See the "test balloon" for 'bool'. > [...] sam
