Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Upgrade to tree-sitter 0.21.0 #138

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Upgrade to tree-sitter 0.21.0 #138

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

smoelius
Copy link

@smoelius smoelius commented Mar 6, 2024

Is there anything holding this back?

If there is, sorry for the noise.

@amaanq
Copy link
Member

amaanq commented Apr 7, 2024

No not at all, sorry for being behind, I've been updating the grammar repos now though. Will do this in my own pr that updates a lot of other stuff too (new language bindings/updating other build files)

#139

@amaanq amaanq closed this Apr 7, 2024
@smoelius
Copy link
Author

smoelius commented Apr 7, 2024

Thank you for the reply, @amaanq.

Shortly after I opened this PR, I noticed that tree-sitter 0.22 was released.

But it looks like #139 upgrades tree-sitter-go to just tree-sitter 0.21.

Is this intentional? If so, can I ask why?

@smoelius smoelius deleted the 0.21.0 branch April 7, 2024 21:24
@amaanq
Copy link
Member

amaanq commented Apr 8, 2024

yeah, we're going to be getting rid of the need for tree-sitter (tree-sitter/tree-sitter#3069) since it has been somewhat annoying when the core library updates and every downstream grammar has to as well

for now, the solution is to just specify >= 0.21.0, which is compatible with 0.22 as well.

@smoelius
Copy link
Author

smoelius commented Apr 8, 2024

for now, the solution is to just specify >= 0.21.0, which is compatible with 0.22 as well.

Today I learned! Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants