On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 09:02:35PM -0400, James McCoy wrote: > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:29:15PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 01:10:18PM -0400, James McCoy wrote: > > > Thanks for the patch! > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 11:27:23PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > > From 8d4641be71797ef7d54a3067f2c15cb374b73b16 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > > From: Josh Triplett <j...@joshtriplett.org> > > > > Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 23:21:37 -0700 > > > > Subject: [PATCH] Install alternatives for ex, rvim, rview, vi, vim, > > > > view, and > > > > vimdiff > > > > > > I don't think it makes sense to install an alternative for vi. Neovim > > > is explicitly dropping various "vi compatibility" pieces of > > > functionality. > > > > Neovim is still an implementation of vi, and acts like vi; it just > > doesn't keep "bug-compatibility". If you didn't have any other vi > > implementation installed, I think it still makes sense for "vi" to > > invoke nvim. > > Ack. > > > > Why are these alternatives 29 when editor is on-par with vim.basic at > > > 30? > > > > I was trying to be conservative, to avoid surprising anyone who installs > > neovim to experiment with it but expects "vim" to have complete vim > > compatibility. > > From a quick experiment, update-alternatives preserves the existing > auto-selected alternative when another is installed at the same > priority. If vim is already installed, it stays selected. If neovim is > installed first and later vim, then neovim stays the selected > alternative.
That seems reasonable. In that case, setting them all to priority 30 seems fine to me. - Josh Triplett
