Originally created by @DrKJeff16 on GitHub (Sep 15, 2025).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/rockerBOO/awesome-neovim/issues/1665
## Description
See #1664 for the original discussion about this.
I've read the discussion in the mentioned pull request, and I can see where you're coming from.
We need to carefully consider how this would affect the scripts in GitHub actions (do they just check for "all checkboxes checked" or is it more complete?), as well as possible redundacy with other "contextual clues".
If a colorscheme is Treesitter compatible, it would probably already be in the relative section when doing the pull request.
The colorscheme matter opens a whole other can of worms too: written in Lua vs VimScript, supports Treesitter, supports "semantic tokens" (see #946 and related issue #1466) etc... And those things may overlap one another.
In short: I think that we can just plain remove the "colorscheme" part. It's very specific and doesn't do much more than what is already done by checking the pull request itself (as I said, a reasonable person would put it under the right "colorscheme subsection", if any) and clicking on the colorscheme link for a double-check. The colorscheme part may be just adding to the confusion.
I'm for "less is more" when it comes to these kind of things.
<!-- gh-comment-id:3315939003 -->
@Penaz91 commented on GitHub (Sep 21, 2025):
I've read the discussion in the mentioned pull request, and I can see where you're coming from.
We need to carefully consider how this would affect the scripts in GitHub actions (do they just check for "all checkboxes checked" or is it more complete?), as well as possible redundacy with other "contextual clues".
If a colorscheme is Treesitter compatible, it would probably already be in [the relative section](https://github.com/rockerBOO/awesome-neovim#tree-sitter-supported-colorscheme) when doing the pull request.
The colorscheme matter opens a whole other can of worms too: written in Lua vs VimScript, supports Treesitter, supports "semantic tokens" (see #946 and related issue #1466) etc... And those things may overlap one another.
In short: I think that we can just plain remove the "colorscheme" part. It's very specific and doesn't do much more than what is already done by checking the pull request itself (as I said, a reasonable person would put it under the right "colorscheme subsection", if any) and clicking on the colorscheme link for a double-check. The colorscheme part may be just adding to the confusion.
I'm for "less is more" when it comes to these kind of things.
I've removed it in my PR. If anyone has an objection I'll happily revert my changes.
<!-- gh-comment-id:3317477104 -->
@DrKJeff16 commented on GitHub (Sep 22, 2025):
@Penaz91 I totally agree with your conclusion.
I've removed it in my PR. If anyone has an objection I'll happily revert my changes.
Thank you @DrKJeff16 and @Penaz91 I agree that in removing the color scheme aspect. We can adjust it later if we find issues with color scheme inclusion being too much.
<!-- gh-comment-id:3322761464 -->
@rockerBOO commented on GitHub (Sep 23, 2025):
Thank you @DrKJeff16 and @Penaz91 I agree that in removing the color scheme aspect. We can adjust it later if we find issues with color scheme inclusion being too much.
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 @DrKJeff16 on GitHub (Sep 15, 2025).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/rockerBOO/awesome-neovim/issues/1665
Description
See #1664 for the original discussion about this.
@Penaz91 commented on GitHub (Sep 21, 2025):
I've read the discussion in the mentioned pull request, and I can see where you're coming from.
We need to carefully consider how this would affect the scripts in GitHub actions (do they just check for "all checkboxes checked" or is it more complete?), as well as possible redundacy with other "contextual clues".
If a colorscheme is Treesitter compatible, it would probably already be in the relative section when doing the pull request.
The colorscheme matter opens a whole other can of worms too: written in Lua vs VimScript, supports Treesitter, supports "semantic tokens" (see #946 and related issue #1466) etc... And those things may overlap one another.
In short: I think that we can just plain remove the "colorscheme" part. It's very specific and doesn't do much more than what is already done by checking the pull request itself (as I said, a reasonable person would put it under the right "colorscheme subsection", if any) and clicking on the colorscheme link for a double-check. The colorscheme part may be just adding to the confusion.
I'm for "less is more" when it comes to these kind of things.
@DrKJeff16 commented on GitHub (Sep 22, 2025):
@Penaz91 I totally agree with your conclusion.
I've removed it in my PR. If anyone has an objection I'll happily revert my changes.
@rockerBOO commented on GitHub (Sep 23, 2025):
Thank you @DrKJeff16 and @Penaz91 I agree that in removing the color scheme aspect. We can adjust it later if we find issues with color scheme inclusion being too much.