I have to agree with the peer poster. That thread only shows a level of attention to detail that is required when producing software that's intended to behave r

I have to agree with the peer poster. That thread only shows a level of attention to detail that is required when producing software that's intended to behave reliably. Bear in mind that drive-by patches have to be maintained forever by the person who is reviewing them. It's often easier to not respond at all, or to implement the work yourself, than to explain all the nuances around correctness and maintainability that may not be obvious to a new contributor. Some projects are more accepting of patches, but they also then have to accept the of patches to fix those patches, and patches to fix the patches that fixed the patches. Other projects try to get things right the first time so that there isn't a second time.