Well, sorry to hear you're taking my words like that. First off, let's try to address the specific points you mentioned:
1. Yes, you mentioned that, but if I remember right you also specified that you did not touch the relevant code, so, according to you, it had to either work as it did before, or not work in case it didn't work before. This was not the case, since obviously you modified the relevant code (in particular, replaced extraFoilSheetKey with sheetKey in the conditional branch through which the Masterpieces were generated), which introduced the "masterpieces not generated at all" bug in the first place.
2. Zendikar (code ZEN) was not the first set with the Masterpieces, Battle for Zendikar was (code BFZ), which correctly specifies the extra foil sheet. In fact, for every set where ExtraFoilSheetKey is relevant (for the purpose for which it was originally implemented, at least) - the sets are BFZ, OGW, KLD, AER, AKH, HOU - it is correctly specified and used (and was working with the original code, albeit with the wrong generation chances). Therefore, you did not research that portion of code and/or period of Magic history well enough before making an assumption about whether it should work and how it should work.
3. Since you are writing and submitting a patch, it is your responsibility to ensure that it works correctly and is formatted according to the standards used in the project you're submitting to. If additional steps are needed before the patch is mainlined, it is also your responsibility to work in tandem with the reviewer who agreed to look into mainlining the patch to update it according to the coding standards used in the project and, if necessary, respond to the critique in order to work out the possible problems. Yep, I did break a few things (and I did warn you in advance that I could have broken things when I asked you to test), but at least the part of the reason why things broke so easily was because the original code as it was submitted was rather hard to read and partially to understand, for the most part because it was very poorly formatted, but also because the implementation logic/style was unfamiliar to me. Even if I didn't break that code and, as a result, we didn't test it and work the kinks out together so that it works *and* is properly formatted, someone else would have broken it sooner or later, since poorly written and poorly formatted code is difficult to work with. Moreover, not going to lie, I'm not the most experienced programmer on the team (and not a professional one), so someone else would have most likely done a better job integrating your work, potentially without necessarily breaking it. But, unfortunately for you, it looks like you'll have to make do with what I can offer you, at least for the time being, since no one else currently on the team appears to be eager to assume my role in reviewing and mainlining the patches.
If anybody else would agree, I'd gladly relegate this role to a more experienced developer, after all, I have my own .todo list to follow as well. ^^
4. As for why you haven't yet been granted direct repository access - you can ask in #dev for details, but to cut a long story short, the team would need you to adapt to our coding standards (and, yes, formatting standards are a part of them too) and overall project vision. Coming in contact on Discord with the rest of the team regarding this would be a good start. I'm not going to speak for the entire team here - I'll just flag this post in #dev, maybe someone else would like to respond directly. And yes, Forge is not developed at a very rapid pace (it is, after all, a non-commercial, amateur, fan-made project), but the goal is not to do things as quickly as possible, it is rather to do them well enough and careful enough to hopefully provide an overall enjoyable experience to the players (and try to break as little as possible along the way - since, hey, most of us are non-professional programmers, so yes, we do break things from time to time too
).
At any rate, sorry to hear you're taking our approach and our collaborate work requirements with such hostility. Personally I hope to see you as our contributor (eventually with full access to the repository), but whether you continue to tinker with the code and attempt to make Forge better in the future or not is, of course, entirely your choice.
- Agetian