This sentence takes the place of a reason. You could have offered a reason why you were right or a rational argument about the matter. Instead, you basically yelled "I'm right, they're wrong! I'm right, they're wrong!".
If you'd like to: Go back and re-read my comment, but re-read it in the mindframe that I'm against the change. It still holds. I didn't provide reasons why they should make the change, because I don't have a stance on whether they should or shouldn't. I am not qualified to say whether its the "Right" decision; just that Rust is on the wrong side of history with this one.
Let's let the future determine whether he was right or wrong, no need for squabbling.
It's not that evidence doesn't exist (it may or may not, and people may or may not agree that something is evidence), it's that none was provided. Without that, all you get is people yelling that they're right and someone else is wrong. Evidence lets people move the argument to useful territory.
Since not every package manager that came before it is consistent with the assertion, no.