@teto, Hi, I notice from #65276 that you have merge ability. I wasn't sure who could merge but now that I know it's you, and that you added a 'congratulations' emoji to the PR, I assume the problem is that my commit message doesn't follow the guidelines? If I fix the commit message and the conflicts, would you be able to merge?

Thanks

Hi, I am not a "core" member of nixos so I tend to merge only small, non convtroversial/dangerous PR. This PR adds lots of packages in one go and I don't know if that's something the nixos team desires (may trigger many new GH issues since these packages have not been tested, has a hosting cost etc).
I believe it should be fine.
@timokau has some more mileage so his opinion might be of interest.

Alright, thank you for chipping in. You have been very valuable guide in the past. I'll wait to hear from @timokau

I'm also not entirely sure we want this. Up until now our criterion for inclusion was "at least on person wants it bad enough to make a PR" and I think that has worked pretty well. At least it guarantees that one person has verified it actually works.

If we just automatically add a bunch of plugins, some of which aren't even plugins as @Mic92 has pointed out, that could cost users some time when a plugin doesn't work and they assume the issue is on their side. It will also add overhead for automated updates and bigger diffs.

I don't think its necessarily horrible, I'm just not quite convinced that the added value outweights the added inconvenience. I'm not blocking this, if anyone with permission (including @teto of course) thinks this should be merged, that is fine by me.

I'd feel better about this if it was maybe just the top-ranking plugins and every plugin was verified at least somewhat.

I agree with @timokau concerns.

Thinking about it, its probably a fair criterion. On the other hand, please bear in mind that there are things that NixOS makes so easy that a lot of people have no incentive to spend time checking in upstream. And also the database has been compiled keeping in mind lots of .vimrc. I will close for now though. Thank you for looking and for maintaing NixOS in general.

Thank you for putting your time into this. Although we can't merge everything, experimentation is always valuable and appreciated :)

No, thank you. You guys have made linux so usable that 'it just works' and I don't even evangelize it anymore.

For next time, how do you handle two separate plugins with the same name? Same timokau/vim-p99 and srgom/vim-p99? Is it alright if I had them both in the file?

No, thank you. You guys have made linux so usable that 'it just works' and I don't even evangelize it anymore.

:)

For next time, how do you handle two separate plugins with the same name? Same timokau/vim-p99 and srgom/vim-p99? Is it alright if I had them both in the file?

That is currently not supported by our automated vim-plugin update infrastructure (see pkgs/misc/vim-plugins/update.py). That script strips the owner and just generates a package for p99.

If you needed that, you could either add a package manually (see pkgs/misc/vim-plugins/generated.nix) and keep it up-to-date manually or improve the update script to allow aliasing.