So obviously the guy is behaving like an entitled jerk, but it’s also surely counter-productive (volunteer maintainers are unlikely to respond well to plain rudeness)? Unless the goal isn’t a productive outcome, but just to be mean?
They are just passionate and most of the times annoyed because something as simple is not being done right.
I don't think this is the case at all. You are commenting in a discussion on how a maintainer of an unstable project which very clearly and unambiguously only targets and supports a specific version of a runtime. Still, said maintainer is being pestered by entitled users who attack the maintainer and how they chose to invest their free time contributing to the project with accusations of being "insane".
This is not "passion". This is sheer entitlement, and abuse on top.
If this was passion, you'd see users contributing their work with proposals to post releases. Even very low effort things like forking the repo and posting their custom releases would be infinitely more productive. You know, the core of FLOSS.
But no. You have someone doing their best generously contributing their time to provide something to the public, and in return they get insults and abuse.
No wonder projects get archived.
Could you please link some of your projects? I could use some inspiration how to deal with entitled FOSS users who do not understand that they already got much more than what they paid for.
No, this is not adequate justification for such behavior towards volunteer FOSS maintainers.
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.
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.
And most people who wronged me were never really rude to me. So i don't even use someone's rudeness as filter for anything.
Are you aware you are talking about a FLOSS project that was gifted to you, and you are advocating for attacking for abusing the creator of said project because you can't even bother to contribute anything back?
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
The source of a library needs an update every time there is a configuration change in _any_ tree-sitter parser supported.
The only sustainable option is not use these helpers and manage editor dependencies manually: tree-sitter parsers, LSP servers (looking at you Mason), and plugins (looking at you neovim distros).
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.
For my text editor I had to yank nvim-treesitter queries and rewrite them.
Archiving a project which has other maintainers is an overreaction.
Also your phrasing of "would be fine" implies that there are things that are not "fine" to do when doing work for free for the public benefit, which is exactly the sort of entitled attitude that makes many (myself included) uninterested in open sourcing their own projects.
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.
If you had the option to exclude only certain people (e.g. those who argues with you) from seeing/using your contributions, would you have done it instead of deleting your account?
I am asking because I've too been burned and it's very commonly how an open source contributor's journey ends. So I've been toying with the idea that contributors should be able to exclude certain people or perhaps even groups of people from using their work.
Basically "I give away my work for free for anyone to use and build upon but if you don't appreciate it, if you treat me like shit, if you do any of X Y Z which hurts me or other people, then you're no longer allowed to use it".
This is a very valid point. It indeed looks like it was done in affect rather than after careful discussion with the (at least) ten members of the nvim-treesitter org.
I know Free and OpenSource software is only available thanks to maintainers who spend their time and money to make it available. This type of sentence though, makes all I just mentioned easy to forget, when they take that tone with you.
> when they take that tone with you.
This makes it sound as if you took it personally?
My guess: People would freak out if FOSS maintainers actually did this.
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.
I've seen DRF did that. Not sure if that is not possible for normal accounts.
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.
Further downside is that your project will have a harder time becoming popular, and being popular is secretly (or not so secretly) the motivation for many in open source.
Will be a lot more honest though.
I guess he really needed the latest ci/chore commits
But seriously, this is messed up. People need to learn to treat others with respect and kindness. Hopefully the maintainer is able to simply move on after archiving the repo, and isn't dealing with any mental struggles from dealing with years of entitled users demanding things for free.
In popular open source projects this is a recurring issue. I suspect the only way to deal with it is to either shift to a platform that has better tools for moderation, or end the project like the maintainer has done. Let someone else fork it and deal with the users.
To clason: Thank you for all the work you did maintaining nvim-treesitter!
Thank you Christian Clason for giving us nvim-treesitter! And always remember, for each idiot insulting you there are thousands of happy, silent users.
I'm guessing the attitude of "users and supporters" of the project such as shushtain complaining and wanting clason to do all the work instead of just doing it themselves, was a factor in him deciding to step away from the project.
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.
If you have a problem with how open source works just please head back to vscode.
What to do as maintainer? Can everyone of them find piece?
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.
Hate it when people break backwards compatibility. For me it's sacrosanct, more important than absolutely anything else.
I only have a handful of plugins so the system works well. And I have a 500 line init.vim (and no other config).
Some ecosystems like golang share this principle and so I can freely update packages without worrying about breakages. But other ecosystems(nvim, python, etc) I'm a lone warrior
