Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Escape-hatch for an entirely declarative configuration #43

Open
o-dasher opened this issue May 22, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Escape-hatch for an entirely declarative configuration #43

o-dasher opened this issue May 22, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@o-dasher
Copy link

o-dasher commented May 22, 2024

I understand that the project's philosophy as such is to provide LSP whenever possible and having everything setup automagically for you. But I still believe that having an escape-hatch to have an entirely declrative would be extremely useful.
My use case is: I have an NixOS setup and I have all my lsps declared on home-manager's configuration plus I setted up all lsps through lspconfig, but the thing is, this seems cumbersome, it would be better to have a single declarative source of truth, and lazy-lsp could provide that if this was possible. Also, on my work's desktop I still need to figure out how to do a proper home-manager configuration, and if I could atleast have the lsps setup on my neovim configuration through lazy-lsp it would already ease the pain of not needing to worry about that as of now.

@dundalek
Copy link
Owner

I don't think I understand, what is the concrete issue and is there anything the plugin could do differently to enable the use case?

@o-dasher
Copy link
Author

I just think it would be interesting to have a disable_automatic_installssetting. Such that the only lsps that are going to be installed and enabled must be on the preferred_servers setting.

@dundalek
Copy link
Owner

I see now. This is indeed a bit outside of the plugin philosophy. Given the servers are not installed upfront but only lazily when a given type of file is opened, I am not convinced to add additional complexity by having an extra option for this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants