I don't see the problem. It's a great result: (paraphrasing) "people arguing about whether code folding is useful or not is pointless. we're going to do it eventually but not right now." What's wrong with that?
In therapy, I love the thought experiment of "What could he have said instead?" and WHY did he choose THIS exact phrasing, out of the millions of approaches he could have chosen?
Say that he is concerned about the time required for the project and only wants to safeguard the project. The post could convey the exact same message like this:
--- Alternative fictional answer by maintainer---
Confirming that code folding is a planned feature. It's a high-impact addition, but the implementation is non-trivial and requires careful design. The primary blocker is technical: our current buffer and positioning logic (see src/core/text_object.rs). A correct implementation requires a significant refactor of how we map logical buffer lines to visual screen positions.
Because core dev time is focused on xxx, a community-led effort is the most realistic path forward for this feature. I can provide review and guidance, but won't have the bandwidth to drive the implementation myself in the near term. If anybody want to contribute, Analyze the groundwork in PR #6417.
I'm keeping this issue open for high-level implementation strategies. Please take detailed design proposals to a new thread in Discussions to keep this focused. Off-topic comments will be removed.
--- end of fictional answer ---
Basically, it all comes down to the vibe each response gives off. The real post is a classic "Do Not Enter" sign. The maintainer acts like the only one with the keys, essentially saying, "This is too hard for you, so don't even bother." It shuts the door on anyone who might want to help, which means the project is stuck waiting for that one person to have free time.
My rewritten version is more like leaving the door open for other smart people. The attitude is, "Look, this is a tricky problem and I'm swamped. If you're up for a real challenge, here’s the map to get started." It respects other developers' skills and invites them to be part of the solution.
I think the key to a great open-source project is that you have to actively build a team you can trust. You do that by giving people a real chance to contribute, learn the hard stuff, and eventually share the load. That's the only way a project grows beyond a one-person show and actually sticks around for the long haul.
It's fine that they dont want to do it or dont want to do it yet.
Still, I wasn't especially impressed with "code folding is hard, we might do it one day but don't hold your breath" from an editor that purports to be a replacement for vim or neovim.
Development is a bit slow because there are only a few maintainers, but also because they have a strong vision and are very aggressive about prioritization and rejecting features that don’t fit. This is why Helix is so good and so focused a tool.
