Andrew Dupont

@pintoch@mamot.fr Both organizations suffer from having only occasional attention from those in charge. It's a relatable problem; it's not like I have much extra time of my own to contribute. It might relate to the fact that we're all using Tree-sitter as a means to an end, and that _end_ tends to be the project that expands to fill up all our free time. That's one reason why I hope VS Code's experiments with Tree-sitter continue; it would bring much-needed attention.

@pintoch@mamot.fr I agree that portability of query files is rather low, but it varies. Pulsar (the editor I work on) needs more detailed highlighting than what highlights.scm tends to provide. But we made sure that our integration with tags.scm is compatible with the standard syntax.

On the whole, sharing of “glue” is less of a concern to me than ensuring popular parsers are maintained and that some incremental progress is made toward addressing Tree-sitter's biggest drawbacks.

@pintoch@mamot.fr @Zimm_i48@fediscience.org In my opinion, both Tree-sitter itself and the tree-sitter-grammars organization need at least two more maintainers who can devote some consistent chunk of time to them.

When Tree-sitter gets attention, it's great. And tree-sitter-grammars is an improvement over what we had before, because it more easily allows for maintainers to hand off to others if they can't invest the time anymore. But it requires some amount of governance that isn't currently happening.