In this case, you really need to go back and look at the issue trackers. It wasn't just people making demands; people had submitted patches that fixed safety is

In this case, you really need to go back and look at the issue trackers. It wasn't just people making demands; people had submitted patches that fixed safety issues. Some of them were merged in, but some were ignored, one was called "boring" and it then mean things started being said. Entire issues were deleted. I don't agree with the mean things. Yet I can understand the frustration: here is a new patch that works and fixes something that could lead to a security issue? No one wants to fork the entire project and start their own version. Honestly, the maintainer seemed kinda arrogant to boot. It might have just been a language barrier too, so who knows. I think if you took enough time to really look at all of it, it's a much more complex situation that what everyone is simplifying it too.