As discussed in #1631, I got notified that the plugin in the title is under "Utility", while it should probably be under "Dependency Management".
Originally created by @Penaz91 on GitHub (Aug 17, 2025).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/rockerBOO/awesome-neovim/issues/1637
As discussed in #1631, I got notified that the plugin in the title is under "Utility", while it should probably be under "Dependency Management".
Maybe we rename it to package management, as dependency management might not cover some things? Otherwise seems correct to be more specific than utility, where utility is more a generic category that other things don't fit into.
<!-- gh-comment-id:3204794062 -->
@rockerBOO commented on GitHub (Aug 20, 2025):
Maybe we rename it to package management, as dependency management might not cover some things? Otherwise seems correct to be more specific than utility, where utility is more a generic category that other things don't fit into.
Maybe we rename it to package management, as dependency management might not cover some things? Otherwise seems correct to be more specific than utility, where utility is more a generic category that other things don't fit into.
I fear that using simply "Package management" would get it mixed up with "Plugin managers" like lazy.nvim or nvim-plug (cause someone could call them "package managers for Neovim"), though it would still be technically correct.
Most languages I know call them "Dependencies" or "Requirements", I wonder if there are more synonyms we can find to make the section less confusing.
<!-- gh-comment-id:3204889010 -->
@Penaz91 commented on GitHub (Aug 20, 2025):
> Maybe we rename it to package management, as dependency management might not cover some things? Otherwise seems correct to be more specific than utility, where utility is more a generic category that other things don't fit into.
I fear that using simply "Package management" would get it mixed up with "Plugin managers" like `lazy.nvim` or `nvim-plug` (cause someone could call them "package managers for Neovim"), though it would still be technically correct.
Most languages I know call them "Dependencies" or "Requirements", I wonder if there are more synonyms we can find to make the section less confusing.
Yeah a good point. I think package manager covers both dependencies, plugins. Package is just the form of abstraction and dependencies are towards some need. Plugins are packages but towards it's own separate thing, so not quite dependencies.
I think the common term for Neovim plugins is plugin manager but also that abstraction is called "pack" or "packages" inside neovim. (:h packages).
I think for the scope of this list, if it's Neovim specific we'll list it under Plugin Manager. Otherwise package management would be the appropriate scope for it. And that would also include dependency management. That is until maybe a move to change to Neovim Package Manager becomes more common.
<!-- gh-comment-id:3207538184 -->
@rockerBOO commented on GitHub (Aug 20, 2025):
Yeah a good point. I think package manager covers both dependencies, plugins. Package is just the form of abstraction and dependencies are towards some need. Plugins are packages but towards it's own separate thing, so not quite dependencies.
I think the common term for Neovim plugins is plugin manager but also that abstraction is called "pack" or "packages" inside neovim. (:h packages).
I think for the scope of this list, if it's Neovim specific we'll list it under Plugin Manager. Otherwise package management would be the appropriate scope for it. And that would also include dependency management. That is until maybe a move to change to Neovim Package Manager becomes more common.
I wonder if adding a small (one paragraph maybe?) description to each section would help solving the issue (together with using "Package Management" as section name) and maybe direct future contributors on where to put which plugin.
What are your thoughts on this? Would it make the readme too long?
<!-- gh-comment-id:3207644314 -->
@Penaz91 commented on GitHub (Aug 20, 2025):
I wonder if adding a small (one paragraph maybe?) description to each section would help solving the issue (together with using "Package Management" as section name) and maybe direct future contributors on where to put which plugin.
What are your thoughts on this? Would it make the readme too long?
Are we having a lot of confusion though? I mean utility seems like a safe bet so not like it's in the wrong place.
Adding special content for sections may make others who rely on the simple formatting to need to modify it. The tree-sitter specific section specifically is not great. Through it was one of the first things I added.
<!-- gh-comment-id:3207664388 -->
@rockerBOO commented on GitHub (Aug 20, 2025):
Are we having a lot of confusion though? I mean utility seems like a safe bet so not like it's in the wrong place.
Adding special content for sections may make others who rely on the simple formatting to need to modify it. The tree-sitter specific section specifically is not great. Through it was one of the first things I added.
Are we having a lot of confusion though? I mean utility seems like a safe bet so not like it's in the wrong place.
I wouldn't want that section to become a "Universal section" where everything is put regardless of whether a better/more specific section exists.
For this, there is not "a lot of confusion", it's just me being pedantic.
Adding special content for sections may make others who rely on the simple formatting to need to modify it. The tree-sitter specific section specifically is not great. Through it was one of the first things I added.
I see where you're coming from, the description you're mentioning is just an explanation of what Tree-sitter is, and it looks a bit out of place 🤔
At this point it might be better to just leave things as they are and move the plugins around on an as-needed basis. What do you think?
<!-- gh-comment-id:3211806054 -->
@Penaz91 commented on GitHub (Aug 21, 2025):
> Are we having a lot of confusion though? I mean utility seems like a safe bet so not like it's in the wrong place.
I wouldn't want that section to become a "Universal section" where everything is put regardless of whether a better/more specific section exists.
For this, there is not "a lot of confusion", it's just me being pedantic.
> Adding special content for sections may make others who rely on the simple formatting to need to modify it. The tree-sitter specific section specifically is not great. Through it was one of the first things I added.
I see where you're coming from, the description you're mentioning is just an explanation of what Tree-sitter is, and it looks a bit out of place 🤔
At this point it might be better to just leave things as they are and move the plugins around on an as-needed basis. What do you think?
Ok we can see how it goes. But things that would be "package management" or "dependency management" will go under Dependency Management, and Neovim plugin/package management will be in the top Plugin Manager section. I think the distinction should remain no matter what happens to make it clear what is for Neovim and what is for other things.
<!-- gh-comment-id:3212050749 -->
@rockerBOO commented on GitHub (Aug 21, 2025):
Ok we can see how it goes. But things that would be "package management" or "dependency management" will go under Dependency Management, and Neovim plugin/package management will be in the top Plugin Manager section. I think the distinction should remain no matter what happens to make it clear what is for Neovim and what is for other things.
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.
Originally created by @Penaz91 on GitHub (Aug 17, 2025).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/rockerBOO/awesome-neovim/issues/1637
As discussed in #1631, I got notified that the plugin in the title is under "Utility", while it should probably be under "Dependency Management".
@rockerBOO commented on GitHub (Aug 20, 2025):
Maybe we rename it to package management, as dependency management might not cover some things? Otherwise seems correct to be more specific than utility, where utility is more a generic category that other things don't fit into.
@Penaz91 commented on GitHub (Aug 20, 2025):
I fear that using simply "Package management" would get it mixed up with "Plugin managers" like
lazy.nvimornvim-plug(cause someone could call them "package managers for Neovim"), though it would still be technically correct.Most languages I know call them "Dependencies" or "Requirements", I wonder if there are more synonyms we can find to make the section less confusing.
@rockerBOO commented on GitHub (Aug 20, 2025):
Yeah a good point. I think package manager covers both dependencies, plugins. Package is just the form of abstraction and dependencies are towards some need. Plugins are packages but towards it's own separate thing, so not quite dependencies.
I think the common term for Neovim plugins is plugin manager but also that abstraction is called "pack" or "packages" inside neovim. (:h packages).
I think for the scope of this list, if it's Neovim specific we'll list it under Plugin Manager. Otherwise package management would be the appropriate scope for it. And that would also include dependency management. That is until maybe a move to change to Neovim Package Manager becomes more common.
@Penaz91 commented on GitHub (Aug 20, 2025):
I wonder if adding a small (one paragraph maybe?) description to each section would help solving the issue (together with using "Package Management" as section name) and maybe direct future contributors on where to put which plugin.
What are your thoughts on this? Would it make the readme too long?
@rockerBOO commented on GitHub (Aug 20, 2025):
Are we having a lot of confusion though? I mean utility seems like a safe bet so not like it's in the wrong place.
Adding special content for sections may make others who rely on the simple formatting to need to modify it. The tree-sitter specific section specifically is not great. Through it was one of the first things I added.
@Penaz91 commented on GitHub (Aug 21, 2025):
I wouldn't want that section to become a "Universal section" where everything is put regardless of whether a better/more specific section exists.
For this, there is not "a lot of confusion", it's just me being pedantic.
I see where you're coming from, the description you're mentioning is just an explanation of what Tree-sitter is, and it looks a bit out of place 🤔
At this point it might be better to just leave things as they are and move the plugins around on an as-needed basis. What do you think?
@rockerBOO commented on GitHub (Aug 21, 2025):
Ok we can see how it goes. But things that would be "package management" or "dependency management" will go under Dependency Management, and Neovim plugin/package management will be in the top Plugin Manager section. I think the distinction should remain no matter what happens to make it clear what is for Neovim and what is for other things.