GNU bug report logs - #60559
29.0.60; "Cannot activate tree-sitter" spam

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Jostein Kjønigsen <jostein <at> secure.kjonigsen.net>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, jostein <at> kjonigsen.net
Cc: casouri <at> gmail.com, 60559 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, theo <at> thornhill.no, mardani29 <at> yahoo.es, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, larsi <at> gnus.org, epg <at> pretzelnet.org
Subject: bug#60559: 29.0.60; "Cannot activate tree-sitter" spam
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2023 09:32:29 +0100

On 05.01.2023 09:12, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2023 08:57:05 +0100
>> Cc: 60559 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, mardani29 <at> yahoo.es, epg <at> pretzelnet.org
>> From: Jostein Kjønigsen <jostein <at> secure.kjonigsen.net>
>>
>>
>> So if I understand this correctly, the change is simply that people
>> wanting to use these modes now needs to do two things instead of one:
>>
>> 1. build with tree-sitter support (already a requirement)
>>
>> 2. will have to (require) the modes they want to use in their init.el
>> (the change)
>>
>> Have I understood things correctly?
> Yes, that's the idea.  We could also make the mode command be
> autoloaded, so just "M-x foo-ts-mode RET" the first time will load the
> mode, thus avoiding the need for require in the init files.  I guess
> there will be users which will prefer one or the other.
>
If we assume that distros are going to be building with 
treesitter-support sooner rather than later, I guess that would be the 
absolutely smoothest way we can have for users to have this working OOB, 
without causing issues for users/distros building without such support.

I definitely support such an approach if it's doable without too much 
effort or risk.

--

Jostein

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.