I dont know why this is being upvoted, the stack overflow question is a personal rant that doesnt really make any sense. But to answer the question, the best o

I dont know why this is being upvoted, the stack overflow question is a personal rant that doesnt really make any sense. But to answer the question, the best open source projects I have worked with have had peer review, someone else on the project is the one who actually pushes your code into the repo, this works a great sanity test and catches most of the common implications that you may have missed, but another good part of this is that it works as lazy concencus now all the people who may have issues with your patch have the opportunity to discuss it before it lands while at the same time not adding too much overhead and bureaucracy to get code landed. The other thing is that the code (or individual parts) have to have owners who have the final say in any disagreements, its impossible to get everyone to agree on every change and sometimes an owner just needs to come in and make a final decision, open source that attempts to work as a democracy has a very hard time in my experience.