[fsdjkflsjfsoij]

> feel violated and humiliated

A lot of contributors are going to feel like this if their patch doesn't get accepted immediately and the maintainer in this case was extremely respectful even though the offered patch had multiple major issues. Contributors shouldn't feel entitled to free tutoring.

[caconym_]

> multiple major issues

Seems debatable and debated, reading through the rest of this thread.

Regardless, I'll reiterate my point more straightforwardly: it's the maintainers' prerogative to treat aspiring contributors however they like, but actions have consequences, and some of those consequences may be deleterious to a project's health.

[fsdjkflsjfsoij]

> Seems debatable and debated, reading through the rest of this thread.

Most of the people commenting in this thread haven't looked at the code and anyone saying the two patches are equivalent can be safely ignored. Out of the issues kazinator pointed out, 1 and 2 are definitely major issues and 3 is debatable although it is definitely suboptimal.

> some of those consequences may be deleterious to a project's health

Of course, but I think it might not be in the way the "everyone can be a valued contributor" crowd thinks.

[ariel-miculas]

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37692883

[caconym_]

> the "everyone can be a valued contributor" crowd

Of course! Who will keep the hordes of dimwits and dilettantes and LinkedIn jockeys at bay, if not those whose merit has already been proven?

[fsdjkflsjfsoij]

> Who will keep the hordes of dimwits and dilettantes and LinkedIn jockeys at bay

This is unironically a very serious problem and why most of the best open source projects are basically corporate FAANG projects that are really only open source for optics.

[caconym_]

On its face, you won't catch me arguing with that. It's a hard problem, for sure.