I've built many successful services by listening to entitled users so much that I used to talk with such entitled users all day.

They are just passionate and most of the times annoyed because something as simple is not being done right.

Easiest people to understand: someone hurt you (in this case disrupted your workflow, especially if pointlessly like this user thinks), you express the dissatisfaction to the person who did.

Humans are notoriously bad at game theory.

He's just incompetent:

1. He blames the maintainer that his distro doesn't ship latest neovim.

2. He didn't pull neovim from the Extra-Testing Arch branch.

3. He didn't pull neovim from AUR.

4. He doesn't have the knowledge to build from source.

5. He didn't pull the tarball from git.

6. He didn't pull the AppImage from git.

There's so many solutions to choose from and he chose none; pure ragebait.

> Unless the goal isn’t a productive outcome, but just to be mean?

Some people are just mean. They spend their angry little lives walking around "outraged" by any minor inconvenience. They assume every single little happenstance was designed to make them miserable.

The greatest thing about having a good education and working with other experts is that I generally don't meet this people that much, but I remember them all too well.

You see, humans are emotional beings, not rational beings. Surely you've seen examples of that basically everywhere there is human interactions.

Think of the average person, in terms of communication skills, education, critical thinking, emotional regulation, etc. Now realize that half the population is below that.

If you're in a social bubble, which is hard to avoid nowadays, I recommend watching police body cam videos to help recalibrate where the ends of the spectrum are. It's also given me sympathy for police in general

not really an excuse, but guy's from Kharkiv, Ukraine - a city that is almost daily getting bombed by russia, maybe he just had a bad day?

Managing the parsers yourself is fairly easy and could rely on running the tree-sitter CLI in each parser repo to build them. Other options exists like installing via Nix.

And in a similar vein, if queries (.scm files) were hosted in each parser repo, it would also be fairly easy to handle.

I think it’s the latter part with the query files that is the challenge here.

I think it would make a big difference even if the aggregation of queries was separated out into a separate repo from the other code, so that you can pin the code for installing and updating parsers while still being able to get updates to the queries, and it isn't as much of a problem if the installation code make major breaking changes (like requiring you to use 0.12)

Stepping away from the project would be fine.

Archiving a project which has other maintainers is an overreaction.

I had a similar emotional outburst where after contributing hundreds of hours to Stack Overflow, when I asked a question of my own, instead of answering an objective yes/no question people just argued with me in the comments about why I could possibly want to do whatever prompted me to ask my question. I delete my account and quit ever contributing to that site right then and there. I think I was just looking for an out and it was ultimately a good thing.

No idea if this is the case here, but I hope the author sticks with this decision. Although, looking at https://github.com/nvim-treesitter/nvim-treesitter/graphs/co... , it doesn't look like he started this project, so I'm not sure it's his place to archive it.

The fork button exists. That's the technically easiest solution.

It's clear to me that the maintainer is referring to "shushtain" and those type of people

> when they take that tone with you.

This makes it sound as if you took it personally?

From personal experience that usually results in the person on the attack opening two additional issues: 1) the original issue recreated, maybe with a childish flourish added e.g. "because we're apparently in the DPKR for this project" 2) a new issue claiming baseless censorship and attacking the maintainer(s) motivation and governance

A variation on this is the above plus they get a hoard of friends/wellwishers/bots etc to raise more issues claiming censorship and it devolves into a massive ad hominem flame war, doxxing, death threats and the usual rubbish that ruin a good thing.

The one GitHub repository of original work I publish right now is kept in Archived at rest; I unarchive it to push commits and then rearchive it, every time. It has been perfectly quiet and my anxiety associated with working on it has dropped to zero. Highly recommended.

Try publishing on https://repo.or.cz (or another old-style web interface), and just leave an email for contact.

You will hear only crickets.

Adding the slightest friction, and making potential drama 1:1 only, demotivates most people.

You might miss out on an occasional good feedback, though.

tree-sitter still works. Many features are implemented in neovim itself. This project provides an easy way to set up parsers for various languages (including installation and retrieval of necessary queries), along with some quality-of-life features. You can just fork it, and it will work perfectly fine for the 0.12 cycle (barring any underlying parser changes), or you can fork the previous version on the master branch if you want to keep using 0.11.

Considering this is a very common plugin in the neovim ecosystem, it will probably get forked and maintained by someone else, like null-ls was forked into none-ls.

I would not worry too much about the maintainer - judging by his GitHub profile he does a bit of professoring as a side hustle ;)

Thank you Christian Clason for giving us nvim-treesitter! And always remember, for each idiot insulting you there are thousands of happy, silent users.

You could probably make things work without nvim-treesitter, but it's an additional maintenance burden you're taking on. As the repo itself says, it's an abstraction layer. You don't _need_ it, but it's nice to have.

It's not one person. The maintainer's been getting abuse over their decision to rewrite the plugin for quite some time now, despite being very clear about what they're doing. It's fine for users to be upset, but not to treat the author like this.

What will happen now is not clasons problem anymore I guess.

The point they seem to be making is that it never was their problem, but they were just solving it for everyone for free anyway, and in return they were doing it wrong and they should stop interacting with people.

Honestly even when people are being paid to work for you and their job is to do what you ask them to, speaking to them like that is never going to work out.

I'm pretty sure this is not over a single user, but this was simply the straw that broke the camels back