I'm not sure gold is the right analogy in this case.. I think that is holding grsecurity's work in higher esteem than is necessary. Don't forget, the code is just part of the work. Ones attitude in contributing that code is another large part of what makes the work "gold".

A better analogy might person A be handing person B back an improvement on person B's own recipe. However, the improvement is written on a piece of paper drenched in piss.

Don't forget, the entire reason grsecurity is able to exist at all is because the Linux kernel is open source and because countless of volunteers and companies have dedicated their time and energy doing exactly what grsecurity fails to do, contributing back in a manner which makes live livable for the maintainers. Each and every one of them could've decided to not bother properly splitting up patches, to not bother documenting their changes properly, and they personally wouldn't have been worse off in a lot of cases. However, because they decided to use proper communication skills (eg. not be a dick), everyone wins.