While the comment was overgeneralizing, the code will be rejected (actually, it won't even be rejected in a final way, just feedback will be given about how pro

While the comment was overgeneralizing, the code will be rejected (actually, it won't even be rejected in a final way, just feedback will be given about how provide a better version that has chances to be integrated) if the code has actual problems (or at least perceived problems in the eye of the maintainer but in some case we are talking about concrete actual correctness problems that are not a matter of opinion but of pure logic), not just if there is an hypothetical risk that problems would be found if the code was reviewed. The efforts are mostly irrelevant if the result has serious problems. And the maintainers also spend some effort to provide the feedback. Which is fair if they say they are open to contributions: effort is provided by contributors, they provide efforts to review. What they can't do, is magically make contributors good enough. So anyone can attempt to contribute if they are ready to take seriously into account the feedback. In case of over-the-top maintainers who are not reasonable about what they want esp. if this is not about logic defects but about vague opinions, yes obviously you don't have to contribute to their project once you figure out they are chronically unreasonable.