Author of the pr gave stuff for free. He showed no signs of entitlement. But he is not there only one who gave stuff for free. The open source project gave code for free that is 100 times bigger than the pr. Not acknowledging that is a problem.

The author of the PR expected it to be merged. That is entitlement. They could have discussed the feature with the maintainers beforehand but AFAICT they did not.

AFAICT, the maintainer is the one lacking communication skills. Perhaps the author commented something to the effect of 'you could have told me this before I wasted my time' in the deleted comments towards the end. Or perhaps they were profanity laden. Perhaps a mix of both. We'll never know for sure.

What we do know, is the maintainer chose to ignore any communication related to this PR, for months, until someone pointed out it was helpful keeping the PR open, as it allowed people to apply it themselves locally. Then, all of a sudden, the PR is closed, and communication finally occurs. Could be coincidence, but that's doubtful considering the time span and specific comment involved.

>What we do know, is the maintainer chose to ignore any communication related to this PR, for months

Which is entirely their prerogative. All they did was build something and give it away for free.

As I said, it's a culture of entitlement that drives people to think that anyone's PR should be looked at is owed.

They are obviously not the only one, developers worked on the original code and made it available under the MIT license. The author of the PR has the right to make the change and run it on their own system, they are also free to share that change to others. The project is free to reject that change for whatever reason.

The core project is given away for free, often with MIT or similar license. Thus allowing competition to build their own enterprise fork, possibly based on rejected community PRs of enterprise features.