Technically the patch isn't rejected (and I'm kinda peeved TFA claims it is). It's in limbo, waiting for further action from the submitter or an other contributor: it's marked as needing improvements since it hides the issue under the rug instead of reporting it to the caller/user.
> The OS disobeying your configuration files is really better than it restarting?
It does not restart, it locks up with a mostly useless error message, then, maybe, at one point, possibly restarts. The restart is not a policy decision it's a side effect of the box being dead. Here's the better option: bubble up the issue to the caller and let it decide what to do.
> Looks to me that Upstart kept the lesser of two evils.
Just because the reject status wasn't used does not mean it wasn't rejected. The patch, as it was written, was rejected. It won't be used and the recommendation was a complete rewrite in a completely different direction.
Technically the patch isn't rejected (and I'm kinda peeved TFA claims it is). It's in limbo, waiting for further action from the submitter or an other contributor: it's marked as needing improvements since it hides the issue under the rug instead of reporting it to the caller/user.
This is a rejected patch: https://code.launchpad.net/~jamesodhunt/libnih/bug-776532/+m..., it has a "Status: Rejected" set (and a disapproving review).
Although of course the patch could have been merged and improved later, so that libnih wouldn't blow up the whole system in case of inotify overflow.