4 ms·

Not sure why you've been downvoted. I agree with your vundle suggestion. I migrated from pathogen to vundle and would recommend that people using the former ch

Not sure why you've been downvoted. I agree with your vundle suggestion. I migrated from pathogen to vundle and would recommend that people using the former check out vundle again. Even if it's from the 'wrong author' (aka not from tpope).

StavrosK 14y ago
The only difference I'm aware of (I haven't looked into it much) is that Vundle downloads plugins too, rather than just install them, but it's a pretty big difference when you're looking for a plugin manager.
- wahnfrieden 14y ago
  It's huge because it lets me manage my plugins in source control much more easily than juggling submodules in git or whatnot. Instead I just have my plugins as lines in my vimrc.
ch0wn 14y ago
> Not sure why you've been downvoted. Just stating "X is better" without giving any reason is not particularly helpful.
- darklajid 14y ago
  Agreed, but he replied to a single word comment (=> worse)
  - ibotty 14y ago
    but this single word was a very valid reply to the parents question. without needing any explanation.
- slurgfest 14y ago
  pathogen requires you to roll your own submodule thingy. This is certainly feasible if you know git well, but vundle is still easier
  - johncoltrane 14y ago
    Not sure where you got that idea: I use pathogen without involving Git at all.
    - ibotty 14y ago
      it does when you want to have your vim configuration in git. and vundle might be easier then (not, that using git submodules is so extremly hard).
    - slurgfest 14y ago
      OK, then you have some kind of shell script to do the downloads, or you do them all manually each time. These are not better alternatives
      - johncoltrane 14y ago
        My ~/.vim is under version control (Git) but not every plugin is available through Git. Some plugin developers use Mercurial, others use Subversion or whatever and most only provide a .tar, a .zip, a vimball or even a single vim script. This Git myopia is seriously getting on my nerve.

StavrosK 14y ago

The only difference I'm aware of (I haven't looked into it much) is that Vundle downloads plugins too, rather than just install them, but it's a pretty big difference when you're looking for a plugin manager.

wahnfrieden 14y ago
It's huge because it lets me manage my plugins in source control much more easily than juggling submodules in git or whatnot. Instead I just have my plugins as lines in my vimrc.

ch0wn 14y ago

> Not sure why you've been downvoted. Just stating "X is better" without giving any reason is not particularly helpful.

darklajid 14y ago
Agreed, but he replied to a single word comment (=> worse)
- ibotty 14y ago
  but this single word was a very valid reply to the parents question. without needing any explanation.
slurgfest 14y ago
pathogen requires you to roll your own submodule thingy. This is certainly feasible if you know git well, but vundle is still easier
- johncoltrane 14y ago
  Not sure where you got that idea: I use pathogen without involving Git at all.
  - ibotty 14y ago
    it does when you want to have your vim configuration in git. and vundle might be easier then (not, that using git submodules is so extremly hard).
  - slurgfest 14y ago
    OK, then you have some kind of shell script to do the downloads, or you do them all manually each time. These are not better alternatives
    - johncoltrane 14y ago
      My ~/.vim is under version control (Git) but not every plugin is available through Git. Some plugin developers use Mercurial, others use Subversion or whatever and most only provide a .tar, a .zip, a vimball or even a single vim script. This Git myopia is seriously getting on my nerve.