addyosmani
commented
11 years ago As mentioned in the other thread, I completely agree. Here's a proposal:
- Imager.js is the canonical location of the library, docs and a barebones example of how it works. Do we want to have Grunt tooling in place for creating a minified version of this library (but drop the current setup otherwise)?
- grunt-imager-demo - a separate repo which contains a tooling example of how to automate some of the things we've previously discussed like image generation, populating the Imager config and so on.
Our focus is on getting the first of these items out the door and then explore the second if there's sufficient interest in it. What do you think?
Integralist
Upon cloning down the code in this repo I've discovered an awful lot of technology is being installed and yet the majority of it is not required to implement the solution this repo was aiming to solve and provide.
I understand Grunt will be utilised in the near future to help automate the process as shown in the original example but either for someone new to the technology stack (e.g. Yeoman, Grunt, Sass, Compass and a whole host of grunt related packages within
package.json) I feel this repo is losing focus on its purpose.The tooling that has been set-up can be fantastic and very helpful I agree, but I feel this repo would benefit much more from only implementing the bare bone essentials needed for it to function properly.
For example, we don't need Sass to generate the CSS required and we don't need Yeoman to handle bootstrapping... etc.
This seems like over-engineering to me.
If the user decides to utilise those tools then that's fine and acceptable for them to implement them around the solution we're providing.
Otherwise we just end up confusing users and potentially alienating them from trying out the solution we're proposing.
@addyosmani would be good to get your thoughts on this :-)