Neovim 0.10 updates

[VlaDexa]

This is a PR that cleans up the config in accordance to new stable features.

I have made the following changes:
Key Mappings:

• Remove K, [d and ]d mappings, since they are included by default
• Remove <leader>e mapping, because neovim started using <C-W>d for this by default

Plugin changes:

• Remove Comment.nvim, since neovim now includes their commenting tool (see :help commenting)

Chores:

• There is a new recommended way of checking for LSP capabilities, so change to that
• Remove check for vim.lsp.inlay_hint presence, since stable now supports it

Fixes:

• Fix problems with the default parameter of the buffer of vim.lsp.inlay_hint.is_enabled

Accumulated PRs

• Upgrade folke/neodev (sunsetting) to folke/lazydev #961
• refactor: replace vim.loop with vim.uv #956

[VlaDexa]

I should add that this probably shouldn't be merged too soon, since 0.10 released today, and it's probably not in many repos. But, I think these changes are fit to be in the main, since the point of kickstart is to be small and support the latest stable Neovim, and not provide a backwards compatible config that works everywhere.

[dam9000]

I think merging this should be delayed by a couple of months, since it will take a while for all the distributions and package managers to upgrade to the latest 0.10 release. In the meantime, the kickstart config as is works perfectly fine also on 0.10. Merging this does not fix anything but it will break functionality for people still on 0.9.5.

[dam9000]

In addition, if these changes are integrated then the :chekhealth would also need to be updated to require minimum version to be 0.10.0 instead of the current 0.9.4 - see lua/kickstart/health.lua

Alternatively these changes could be made conditional with something like:

if vim.fn.has 'nvim-0.10' == 1 then
...
end

curiously, the below version check does not work for me in nvim 0.10:

if vim.version.ge(vim.version(), '0.10') then
...
end

any idea why? I tested it with the prebuild nvim-linux64.tar.gz 0.10 release.

[VlaDexa]

prebuild nvim-linux64.tar.gz 0.10 release

Check your vim.version(). Just downloaded the release files from github, and it seems that they have packaged a version with a dev mark on it. Their version comparator looks for that and if it finds some prerelease mark it shows that 0.10-dev is greater than 0.9 but still less than 0.10

[dam9000]

@VlaDexa you are right, vim.version() says:
0.10.0-dev+g27fb62988

[blarz]

Regarding the delay merging the PR, the README says:

Kickstart.nvim targets only the latest 'stable' and latest 'nightly' of Neovim.

So it would make sense to merge this now or soonish IMHO.

At which point do you declare it ready to go, when you say we should wait for distributions to package it?

But I also see this point:

Merging this does not fix anything but it will break functionality for people still on 0.9.5.

How was this handled during the 0.9 release?

[VlaDexa]

Can I collect here commits from other PR's that also suggest stuff for neovim 0.10? I think GitHub will autoclose those ones if this big PR containing their commits get merged
I'm talking about #961 and #956, for example

[VlaDexa]

Got tired of waiting for someone to reply. If anyone wants for these commits from other PR's to not be included here please tell me.
For PR authors whose commits I merge here: please don't close your requests, as inclusion here doesn't mean it will get merged upstream

[rmacklin]

I think GitHub will autoclose those ones if this big PR containing their commits get merged

That would only happen if 1) you did a merge of #961 rather than a cherry-pick (as it stands now, only #956 could be auto-closed, since that PR's exact history is included in this branch's history) and 2) this PR was merged using a merge commit rather than a squash-merge - but the maintainers normally do a squash-merge so... 🤷‍♂️

Edit: Side note - you inspired me to add some more reasons to https://github.com/rmacklin/why_i_dont_recommend_squash_and_merge

[rivenirvana]

Are these going to be merged anytime soon?

[VlaDexa]

Fixes #992

[feoh]

Hi all.

I had to take a breather because I was getting kinda cranky after a wave of "YOUR CODE IS CRAP WHY CAN'T YOU NOT SUCK?" issues :)

I'm not averse to merging this now. Does it contain the :checkhealth changes @dam9000 recommended?

[VlaDexa]

Does it contain the :checkhealth changes @dam9000 recommended?

Neovim still hasn't fixed the versioning issue in the official releases, so the 0.10 version check still won't work. We can make it compare against '0.10-dev' version, which works for currents stable but will also pass anyone on old nightlies.

[feoh]

is there any reason why allowing it to pass for nightly would be bad?

@dam9000 do you stink this pull request is premature still?

[VlaDexa]

is there any reason why allowing it to pass for nightly would be bad?

Couldn't think for any but wrote that for your information. Seeing that you're also fine with this, made a new commit.