Make checking in and publishing code simpler/more correct

[phil303]

Problem: Currently we check-in our transpiled code. Other than this being a general nuisance, it's actually a little dangerous as well. Because it's essentially one big blob of code, it's hard to read and parse. We've already encountered situations when someone's checked in code bashed someone else's changes.

Fix: It's fairly simple to fix this by simply checking in only the source code and publishing only the build code.

Details: I've moved all our source code into /src, that way it's easier to target for things like npmignore and our linter. This change is actually straightforward since all the paths are relative and therefore I only needed to update webpack's config to point to /src/index.es6.js.

I then tell npmignore to ignore almost everything but our build file (and some other small files that I wasn't too sure about - repl and run.js).

Finally I updated package.json to have a prepublish hook to ensure that our source code is transpiled before it's pushed to npm.

Other changes:

• Removed a bunch of gitignore things that looked irrelevant to this library
• Removed .editorconfig and mancyLoader, which also looks irrelevant.
• Updated package.json with more up to date information and updated build to 0.10.0 (tested this out as well).

There's some other funky stuff going on in this repo, such as js files being executable and the .es6.js extensions but in the interest of smaller changes (and this is already a pretty big one), I'm not going to touch those on this pass.

[phil303]

:eyeglasses: @schwers || @nramadas || @griffinmichl

[schwers-zz]

🔕 Part of me thinks we should keep the source and lint files in the repo, I find myself changing that at times for quick edits. I also want to setup building this source directly into our consumers instead of using the built version (for tree shaking / sourcemaps). We can easily change that once the later is setup.

🐟 Overall I think this is a big improvement

[phil303]

@schwers I'm actually not sure what the "correct" thing to do there is. Just a quick audit of our libraries seems to indicate it's normal to publish the source. I can't really think of a reason not to except I thought someone at some point told me that it wasn't the correct thing to do and maybe payload size.

[schwers-zz]

@phil303 I think overall keeping the source is "the right thing to do" :tm:. The first thing that comes to mind to me is building the source yourself for advanced users. I think it makes diff of the dependencies repo a little more parseable as well, but I care less about that as we can usually track module version numbers to commits pretty easily

[phil303]

For posterity, I discussed this with @schwers. Apparently leaving the source code makes folks using rollup's lives easier. So for now, I'm going to add it back in.

[phil303]

:haircut: @schwers

[schwers-zz]

:fish: