Add also the stipend to the landscape. One party gets the code and needs to merge it to the codebase (more work), and the other party learns and is paid for doi

Add also the stipend to the landscape. One party gets the code and needs to merge it to the codebase (more work), and the other party learns and is paid for doing so. If the guy is going to be paid, he should do a decent job, including sticking to project's guidelines. Why should he be paid if he only made more work for the project? > There is no point in giving a line-by-line commentary on how a particular bit of code fails to meet trivial code formatting guidelines. Well, the reviewer explained the thing in the first encountered line, and then pointed all the lines that need the same treatment so the submitter doesn't have to search for them himself. This is why such comments arise when reviewing somebody's code. All in all, the reviewer was not rude. He may be thought of as dry, but certainly not rude. The submitter's attitude, on the other hand, showed an attitude, even if it was him that was benefitting from the conversation, not the reviewer. Something with that is off.