script name collisions
dbarnett opened this issue · comments
There are two scripts on vim.org named "browser.vim" (1053 and 2227). The vim-scripts.org website lists both, but the link for the newer plugin points to the git repo for the older one.
Arg, that's true. They should have been disambiguated so 1053 was named 'browser.vim' and 2227 is something like 'browser.vim-michael-brown'. Definitely a bug that didn't happen in this case.
Good catch!
Something similar happens with scripts named po.vim.
Currently, there is a syntax plugin (http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=913), an utility script (http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=64) and two ftplugins (http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=695 and http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=2530 -- The latter one is a newer fork of the former).
But all the scripts in vim-scripts.org point to http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=64
@gmarik told me that he will take a look to this (I reported this on vundle, thinking that was vundle's bug)
Hi, got the same issue with scripts named python.vim. There are 4 plugins with this name
Hi, got the same issue with scripts named python.vim. There are 4 plugins with this name:
utility python.vim A set of menus/shortcuts to work with Python files
ftplugin python.vim python compiler script
syntax python.vim Enhanced version of the python syntax highlighting script
color scheme python.vim 'python' colour scheme
Also I believe the same problem may be with
indent indentpython.vim An alternative indentation script for python
ftplugin compilerpython.vim compiler plugin for python
ftplugin compilerpython.vim improved python compiler script
indent indentpython.vim best plugin for indent python code!
Here's another collision: I maintain a fork of Mark.vim. Here, the plugin is listed with my updated description, but the repo actually contains the outdated original.
People would like to consume my fork via Pathogen et al, but currently can't. Please fix this!
Same problem with Calendar.vim. vim-scripts contains outdated version.
When I saw (regarding my issue with the Mark fork) https://github.com/vim-scripts/Mark--Karkat next to https://github.com/vim-scripts/Mark, I thought this issue had been addressed. But the All Scripts page still links both occurrences to the latter, outdated repo. And the correct (first) repo doesn't seem to be updated by the crawler, it's stuck at version 2.5.2 (9 months ago), whereas vim.org has version 2.7.0 from 04-Jul-2012.
Is anyone working on this? Can you please provide a priority and/or timeline for fixing this? It seems like several plugins are affected, so this greatly diminishes the utility of this site.
Right now I'm working full time+ on a contract for an important company... I just don't have coding time left over. :-/
I'm happy to answer questions and give guidance as best I can. gmarik's been a stud in my absence and I hope others can step in too.
Maybe when the contract is done I'll be inclined to give scraper some love. Not sure when that will be -- we were originally supposed to be finished in May.
Thanks @bronson for the update! You and gmarik have done a great job in your spare time... let's hope you'll attract some volunteers to put this on a stable base. I see Pathogen et al. in use all the time, and this project is helpful even for those plugins that have a source GitHub repo (because you'll get just the released versions, not any intermediate snapshot).
I'm slowly progressing on this issue.
local scraper repos are still out of sync which causes most of the issues: 1) name collisions 2) out of date repos.
I'm going to spend some time fixing 1) this week.
This should help catching up with 2)
Sorry for inconveniences.
Same for AutoClose plugin (1849 and 2009).
Just found, 2009 is available under AutoClose--Alves however vimscripts.org links both to repo of 1849
Any chance of this getting fixed? I emailed a couple of plugin authors about bugs that had already been fixed in newer versions, but because the vim-scripts repos were not current, I ended up wasting the authors' and my time.
Hm, this is a frustrating inadequacy. I'd love to help, and I do need more Ruby practice, but I have negative time right now, and I don't know if I'd be much help anyway. @gmarik, any progress? Where might I look in the scraper code regarding the name-collision issue?
@BatmanAoD: The fix is "Do not use a scraper at all", do what https://bitbucket.org/vimcommunity/vim-pi does: We've created an api which returns a list of all known plugins and sources - thus there is no longer any need to use a scraper IMHO.
But if you want to solve problems which have been solved long time ago continue. You may also be interested in the plugin management overview http://vim-wiki.mawercer.de/wiki/topic/vim plugin managment.html - Maybe you already know: There are more options. The fix is: "Make vundle collaborate". I'd join vundle - but that would mean I'd turn into what I already have :( Thus join by keeping that summary page up to date and help people by telling them about all options which exist.
I'm fine with many people disagreeing on what I say.. Its my personal view.
@MarcWeber I was actually unaware of the existence of vim-pi. Of course I don't want to solve already-solved problems; I just want slightly better plugin-manager behavior. I'm not very invested in Vundle, so perhaps I'll try out VAM. But I don't know that the existence of VAM makes fixing Vundle an entirely worthless endeavor.
EDIT: Even if you don't want to "join" Vundle, do you have any suggestions on how exactly to replace the scraper with vim-pi?