[darklajid]

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]

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]

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]

> Not sure why you've been downvoted.

Just stating "X is better" without giving any reason is not particularly helpful.

[darklajid]

Agreed, but he replied to a single word comment (=> worse)

[ibotty]

but this single word was a very valid reply to the parents question. without needing any explanation.

[slurgfest]

pathogen requires you to roll your own submodule thingy. This is certainly feasible if you know git well, but vundle is still easier

[johncoltrane]

Not sure where you got that idea: I use pathogen without involving Git at all.

[slurgfest]

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]

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.

[ibotty]

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).