Shim to gulp-rimraf, see https://github.com/robrich/gulp-rimraf/issues/4

[peter-vilja]

People seems to discover "gulp-clean" much easier. Would it be easier for all if you would rename your plugin to "gulp-clean" or I'll just set us both as authors/maintainers for this? Of course it's not nice to rename/unpublish a package, but if this just points to your plugin it only causes multiple steps for the users.

[robrich]

I filed an issue with the plugin search site. It doesn't search by keyword only by name. Until it does I see value in having both plugins. As soon as I can search for "clean" and return gulp-rimraf (or search for "rimraf" and get gulp-clean) I see value unobliging or getting louder about deprecated. Which name should survive? I think rimraf is more accurate, but I'm not overly sold either way.

[peter-vilja]

I agree that rimraf is more accurate than just clean, but those who are changing from grunt to gulp probably know grunt-contrib-clean so gulp-clean is intuitive. Does many people know isaacs rimraf? vs grunt-contrib-clean? I don't know. Your choice. I vote for clean, at least now it has more downloads, but don't say that the users can't get used to rimraf :)

Nice issue +1.

[mattstauffer]

+1 clean instead of rimraf. I would've just glossed over rimraf, having never heard of it (I'm coming from Grunt & Guard, for what that adds to it.)

[darsain]

I'm familiar with isaacs' rimraf, but even than the first thing I've searched for was "clean" :)

My 2 cents: node.js supports multiple platforms, not all of which have rm -rf, so naming something rimraf isn't going with the crossplatform aim of node.js. Even when node.js' maintainer himself has named his module rimraf.

I think that library names should describe what they do in most expressive ways. Arriving at the name like

remove files recursively -> linux has 'rm -rf' -> rimraf

is as cryptic as it gets...

I understand why you can't name rimraf module "clean", as node module named "clean" could do a plethora of things, but there is very little confusion of what a module named "gulp-clean" would do.

Whatever the decision, just do it quickly so I can safely start using a plugin that won't get deprecated or disappear from npm in a few weeks :)

[robrich]

I'd argue that "because Grunt does it" is a pretty good indication that we shouldn't. Now that the gulp plugin search site matches keywords, typing "clean" nets "gulp-rimraf". Perhaps the plugin site should also surface the module's description to avoid this while still using node-standard terms.

[mattstauffer]

I agree that "the grunt way" isn't the right way to do it. But I'd argue that "the node way" might not be either. 

Gulp is huge in that it's opening both node and build systems in general up to a much wider audience. To me, this is an opportunity to choose a clear and concise name that doesn't require users to be a node person or even familiar with rm -rf to get it. 

I would reverse your suggestion there. Gulp-clean, and have it show up on searches for rimraf so node folks can find it quickly. To me, folks who wouldn't recognize rimraf in a gulp file or a tutorial they saw online are the target audience for a rename. 

But, again, I'm not a node guy. This is just my two cents as someone who is excited to see gulp adoption skyrocketing.  — Sent from Mailbox for iPhone

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Rob Richardson notifications@github.com wrote:

I'd argue that "because Grunt does it" is a pretty good indication that we shouldn't. Now that the gulp plugin search site matches keywords, typing "clean" nets "gulp-rimraf". Perhaps the plugin site should also surface the module's description to avoid this while still using node-standard terms.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/peter-vilja/gulp-clean/pull/3#issuecomment-34298944

[robrich]

I think the major benefit of gulp is that it is the node way. I grant that streams are one of the more complex node topics, but it's precisely this node topic that make gulp plugins just JavaScript functions, and creatively using them is what makes gulp fast. I say in any gulp scenario doing it more node-ish will ultimately yield a better solution even if we must initially educate users.

[yocontra]

Is this going to happen anytime soon? I'm still plagued by issues where people are using this module. Deprecate the module by pointing the README to gulp-rimraf (just put a link and nothing else). Leave this for discoverability. Problem solved.

[popomore]

+1