On 23 March 2014 15:34, Bram Moolenaar <[email protected]> wrote: > > At some point Vim started supporting plugins. At that time it was fine > to add a plugin manually, it was a one-time thing. But now that there > are so many plugins and they get updated often, manually updating > plugins has become tedious. > > I am wondering what Vim users like about plugin managers. > Is there one that works best, that everybody should use? > Are there still features that no existing plugin manager offers? > > Vundle appears to be popular, someone mentioned it's better than > Pathogen. So nobody is using Pathogen? > > But then there is also NeoBundle. But not everybody has git installed > and it depends on that. > > And there also is vim-addon-manager. And Vimball. > > Is it fine to have a choice of plugin managers, or is this causing a > headache (for users and/or for plugin writers). If yes, then we should > pick one plugin manager and retire the others.
Personally, I think it's fine to have a choice. I use pathogen in combination with my own shell script that I wrote a long time ago - I like the look of Vundle, but it only supports git so is no good for plugins that are maintained in mercurial or bazaar. I know there's the mirror of published ones, but sometimes it's good to be able to use the latest development versions. I wouldn't mind the idea of a 'standard' vim plugin manager, but if it locked users in to git I'd want there to be some way to turn it off and go ones own way. Al -- -- You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
