The Rust criticism is valid - the hidden "breaking changes" have been a hallmark of rust releases and anyone maintaining a serious codebase in rust needs to really be on top of testing and validating if they want to stay current - moreso than any other language in the same stable as rust.
You can't however claim the right and reason to refuse PRs and code changes under the moniker of maintenance while simultaneously claiming that the rust community is "actively hostile to a second rust compiler implementation" - you can't have it both ways.
The entire narrative is very indicative of the state of open source unfortunately - incredibly adept programmers getting chewed up by the externalities of maintaining code (and by extension an application). Sometimes it's unappreciative users asking for handouts and sometimes it's other developers (or an organization's development resources) causing contention for a project's trajectory.
I think the entirety of it can be summed up as: forking is there for a reason.
You can't however claim the right and reason to refuse PRs and code changes under the moniker of maintenance while simultaneously claiming that the rust community is "actively hostile to a second rust compiler implementation" - you can't have it both ways.
The entire narrative is very indicative of the state of open source unfortunately - incredibly adept programmers getting chewed up by the externalities of maintaining code (and by extension an application). Sometimes it's unappreciative users asking for handouts and sometimes it's other developers (or an organization's development resources) causing contention for a project's trajectory.
I think the entirety of it can be summed up as: forking is there for a reason.