I had a patch rejected after being told "patches welcome", for lacking detailed user testing or not matching any official user stories or something (which is BS, the rationale was just as good as anything), only for the person who rejected it to later implement the same feature just because it "feels" better. Years later after they forgot of course, otherwise they would have kept the feature unimplemented out of stubborn spite.
I feel pretty salty about it. Don't say patches welcome if they're not, and don't apply selective burdens of evidence in favour of including a particular change.
Some of them have huge egos and are stubborn as anything. If something wasn't their idea originally it can be a real uphill battle regardless of how sensible it is. Convince them it was their idea and suddenly the gates are open.
I feel pretty salty about it. Don't say patches welcome if they're not, and don't apply selective burdens of evidence in favour of including a particular change.
Some of them have huge egos and are stubborn as anything. If something wasn't their idea originally it can be a real uphill battle regardless of how sensible it is. Convince them it was their idea and suddenly the gates are open.