Review Checklist

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).

ngl this looks hedious as fuck to me and not something I'm particularly eager to maintain when its not clear what it does on a first look.

wdyt @azdanov

Hey. I don't think this is a part of a "community" plugin. If something breaks or becomes incompatible in the future then no one will be able to understand what was the issue. It's more of a personal dotfile thing.

Gonna agree with @azdanov. Unless you come up with a version of this that's easier to maintain. This is not good enough as is.

This is the simplest way i could come up with, so i will keep it in my personal config 👍