No, it's not. Legitimate discussion and review, sure - but that doesn't take two hours. The problem is with maintainers arguing over small changes, trying to tr

No, it's not. Legitimate discussion and review, sure - but that doesn't take two hours. The problem is with maintainers arguing over small changes, trying to trivialize them, finding reasons to reject them, asking contributors to do more work first... It's pretty much impossible to just leave a contribution and move on. This is something I encounter constantly. It's why I've stopped bothering submitting documentation fixes in most cases, and now resort to writing and publishing my own documentation. It makes one-off contributions to open-source unreasonably costly and non-viable. I know many others who feel the same. If maintainers want more contributions to their open-source projects, they need to start recognizing that the contributor's time and skills are valuable as well - that means not second-guessing contributions unless there's a concrete reason to do so, and making an effort to write a comprehensive response to a contribution (especially if it's a rejection). And most of all, being clear about this policy. It's easy to say "why don't you submit it to the project?" from the sidelines, but the reality is that 'formal' contributions nearly always come with an expectation of dedicating your time and attention towards them on a more-or-less ongoing basis. Many people cannot afford that, and as such publish them elsewhere. Changing that starts with maintainers, not with contributors.