Closed fynnfluegge closed 1 week ago
Does this PR follow the [Contribution Guidelines](development guidelines)? Following is a partial checklist:
Proper conventional commit scoping:
If you are adding a new plugin, the scope would be the name of the category it is being added into. ex. feat(utility): added noice.nvim plugin
If you are modifying a pre-existing plugin or pack, the scope would be the name of the plugin folder. ex. fix(noice-nvim): fix LSP handler error
[ ] Pull request title has the appropriate conventional commit type and scope where the scope is the name of the pre-existing directory in the project as described above
[ ] README
is properly formatted and uses fenced in links with <url>
unless they are inside a [title](url)
[ ] Entry returns a single plugin spec with the new plugin as the only top level spec (not applicable for recipes or packs).
[ ] Proper usage of opts
table rather than setting things up with the config
function.
[ ] Proper usage of specs
table for all specs that are not dependencies of a given plugin (not applicable for recipes or packs).
we normally stick to the default. u always can overwrite the setting for yourself locally. i guess it would be unexpected have different defaults
Alright, thought this would be a better default. Closing it, thanks for the response!
it makes more sense to ask upstream to change the default.. but i guess mini will not change it
📑 Description
Adds an animation to
mini-indentscope
with faster border rendering. Personally the slow rendering is very distracting to my eyes. Raising a PR since it feels this distraction is a common perception.ℹ Additional Information
Before
After