It doesn't sound like you've ever maintained an active free software project.
It's not "tutoring" to perform a code review and request additional changes to the patch. That's a standard feedback mechanism in free software development.
kazinator's analysis may be right, but it doesn't sound like it would have taken the maintainer more than a few minutes to explain his objections and given the contributor a chance to shore up his patch.
There's plenty of examples in the history of the kernel project of much larger patches going round and round until they land. From kazinator's description, it's possible the patch could have been made ready in a single review round.
> All three issues brought up by kazinator are reasonable grounds for ignoring the patch.
The patch (and bug report) wasn't ignored. That's kind of the point.
It's not "tutoring" to perform a code review and request additional changes to the patch. That's a standard feedback mechanism in free software development.
kazinator's analysis may be right, but it doesn't sound like it would have taken the maintainer more than a few minutes to explain his objections and given the contributor a chance to shore up his patch.
There's plenty of examples in the history of the kernel project of much larger patches going round and round until they land. From kazinator's description, it's possible the patch could have been made ready in a single review round.
> All three issues brought up by kazinator are reasonable grounds for ignoring the patch.
The patch (and bug report) wasn't ignored. That's kind of the point.