If you're asking them to accept your code then yes, you' are asking them to support your project forever.
If you weren't sending them patches then they couldn't block you. Since you are they can.
Again, it's not their job to support this great idea you have that means they have to change how they've done everything for the last 30 years.
That is to say, if you are building an tool as a collaborative open source project, then that implies that you intend to collaborate.
It works both ways. If you have a beef, don't be surprised if someone responds to it in a way you don't expect or like.
So far, I haven't seen discussions from both sides of the wall. But I hear a lot of noise from one side of the wall trying to get the attention of people on the other side of the wall. Now we will see if the people inside the wall think there is an issue with the gate.
> If you weren't sending them patches then they couldn't block you. Since you are they can.
One of the big turning points of this drama was a maintainer from a different area (who had been CCed on the threads, but was not the person the patch was being submitted to) blocking a patch that they weren't going to have to maintain.
But saying that he is't going to have have any additional maintenance burden just because the rust code using his subsystem is in a different subtree is also not an honest assesment of the situation. That's not how the kernel developent works.
Then say that. A big part of the issue is that there has been mixed signals from the Linux maintainers about R4L. Linus seemed to have supported it, and others are trying to block it.
The maintainers should get on the same page about the inclusion of rustlang code, and communicate that.