On Mar 25, 2014 10:07 PM, "BPJ" <bpj@melroch.se> wrote:
>
> 2014-03-25 11:33, Nikolay Pavlov skrev:
>
>> Please point where anybody said a word about automatic updating. VAM and
>> Vundle do not do this for sure.
>>
>
> Well excuse me for getting the impression from statements like
> this from Ben in the mail I quoted:
>
>
> "Vundle and the rest take too much config for my tastes to get them to update when I want from what source I want."
>
> Why being so confrontational, BTW? You could just have said "VAM
> and Vundle don't do automatic updating", if you think I'm
> mistaken. I don't agree about that, incidentally:
It is a known attack pattern: assign your opponent a property that he does not own (but it easy to believe he does), criticize it to the point where listeners believe he is wrong by owning this property and then collect the benefits.
Would not you be confrontational if you recognized an attack?
>
> <https://github.com/gmarik/Vundle.vim/blob/master/doc/vundle.txt#L228>
>
> 3.4 UPDATING PLUGINS ~
> *vundle-plugins-update* *:PluginUpdate* *:PluginInstall!*
> >
> :PluginInstall! " NOTE: bang(!)
> or >
> :PluginUpdate
>
> Installs or updates the configured plugins. Press 'u' after updates complete
> to see the change log of all updated bundles. Press 'l' (lowercase 'L') to
> see the log of commands if any errors occurred.
>
> That's one command to update all plugins at once. That's way too
> automatic for me! No point in splitting hairs over the exact
JUST do not use this command then.
> semantics of the phrase "automatic updates". In my book updating
There is a point. Language was created for people to understand each other. You cannot participate in a discussion if your understanding of the words differs from understanding of the other participants.
> anything without my saying "update *this* exact plugin from
> *that* source" is too automatic updating for me, although the
I do not think you may find many users here for whom "automatic updating" means just "updating on demand". *No* package managers ask you about the source of the package when updating. Sometimes you may say "install from this source" and it will replace existing plugin with version from that source, but update *never* asks about the source of the package. So if you want to update from specific source you ask package manager to *install* from it. Vim plugin managers lack this functionality though.
> source issue becomes less of a problem if there is one source
> where I can get Vim and all and any plugins, and I should also be
> able to say "update all plugins for which there is a newer
> version available" if I want to.
With VAM you can ask to update specific plugin only. Action "update all plugins for which there is a newer version available" is exactly what VAM does if you disallow using VCS sources (otherwise it may switch source types without notice (or with, I do not actually remember)) (updating VCS sources which were installed manually still works fine).
>
> My point was not "don't autoupdate", but "different users have
> different preferences and requirements when it comes to plugin
> management as well as when it comes to editing, so please provide
> an API where different tools meeting those different preferences
What API, exactly? I have heard a number of requests, but nothing specific regarding client side (www.vim.org requirements were more specific).
> and requirements can be supported rather than single out The One
> True Plugin Manager". Some people would probably want automated
Nobody is going to make one plugin manager the only option. But it will be most common and most used one: like in Gentoo where you have a choice between portage, paludis (and writing something third) portage (the default) is usually the only one used. And it is actually good as long as there are ways to make anything else default like Python have once switched from easy_install to pip.
> updates, so make it possible for them to have it, and others will
> want various diminishing degrees of automation, down to none at
> all, so let everyone have what they want. It's all fine with me
> as long as I can also get what I want. My other main point is
> that it should be possible, 'out of the box', to install a plugin
> just by cloning a repository or unpacking an archive in a single
> place, rather than moving umphteen files to so many different
> directories in one's ~/.vim folder. It may be possible to install
> by just dropping stuff into the ~/.vim folder and letting the
> OS file manager 'combine' everything into the right places,
> but *un*installing becomes *very* hard.
You do not understand what package manager mean. "emerge -C vim-latexsuite" is no harder then removing its directory. I never requested PM to support only $HOME/.vim installations.
Making any PM official does not mean that you *must* use it. There already *is* a PM in main tree: GLVS. Why does VAM exist then?
>
> /bpj
>
>
> --
> --
> 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 vim_use+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 vim_use+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
No comments:
Post a Comment