TBH that's a level of quality control that probably informs the Linux kernel dev's view of Rust reliability - it's a consideration when evaluating the risk of including that language.
Your comment misunderstands the entire point and risk assessment of what's being talked about.
It's about the overall stability and "contract" of the tooling/platform, not what the tooling can control under it. A great example was already given: It took clang 10 years to be "accepted."
It has nothing to do with the language or its overall characteristics, it's about stability.
