My question is mainly for Marc, but as I suspect other people may have the answer, or be interested in it, I'll ask here.
In the process of updating and cleaning my home installation of vim, I've notice a few regressions.
The typical one is that I cannot do a ":UpdateAddons lh-cpp" any more.
So, I've looked in scmsources.vim and see that the plugin seems to be still referenced, but under an obfuscated number (the script id from vim.org where I no longer update anything) instead of a comprehensible name, that is lh-cpp.
So what is VAM (new?) policy ?
Are plugins to be registered under obfuscated numbers ? Can't we have any more an human-friendly id if we made the "error" of publishing the script on vim.org a decade ago?
As you can see, I'm clearly in favour of using names by default (when there is no conflict -- i've would have named my plugin lh-{name} if not to prevent conflicts), and script-id in last resort. Can we change the policy to that one?
BTW, i'm perfectly aware of a problem here as my fork of mu-template have nothing to do with the original mu-template, except it can read and expand legacy template-files, and that I've kept the name. I'm afraid someday I'll to find another name as the fork is required to support all the advanced templates from lh-cpp -- and thus it needs to be easy to install it thanks to vam.
--
Luc Hermitte
http://lh-vim.googlecode.com/
http://hermitte.free.fr/vim/
--
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
No comments:
Post a Comment