Version in GET param

[d-u-a-l]

Added an option not to modify filenames, but change GET parameter (for example 'v', it could be made changeable through options) like common.css?v=HASH. In this case you don't need to make rev() call to change filenames (and by that you don't have to worry about deleting old files), just rev.manifest({get:true})

[mention-bot]

@d-u-a-l, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @c0, @borisceranic and @sindresorhus to be potential reviewers.

[benbieler]

Sorry, but these are the node versions we are currently supporting:

node_js:
  - 'iojs'
  - '0.12'
  - '0.10'

@sindresorhus we really need to upgrade...

[sindresorhus]

Duplicate of https://github.com/sindresorhus/gulp-rev/issues/129.

[bobthecow]

This is asking to put the rev hash in a query param, not asking to use the semver version, so it's not a dupe of #129

@d-u-a-l I would highly recommend against this. And Steve Souders says it's a bad idea :)

[d-u-a-l]

@benbieler I don't understand, why you are telling me about Node versions, I didn't write any modern code, just plain old JS ES5. It's not very pretty, but it's my first pull-request, so don't judje to hard :)

@sindresorhus No, as @bobthecow pointed, it's not a duplicate of #129. My suggestion was to give users a choise to put hashes not into filename (thus, changing names completely), but into query parameter - so, you don't have to manually delete old files (or use yet another plugins to do this). It simplifyes the use of a plugin, because you have to only call rev.manifest function ('cause rev is for renaming)

@bobthecow I suggested to use it only as an option, to give users choise between changing resource name and only changing a query parameter in html. Just because some proxy providers can't (or don't want to) configure their servers as they should, doesn't mean, that we should refuse of using this technique

[sindresorhus]

This plugin is feature complete. We're not adding more options to it.

[d-u-a-l]

@sindresorhus you don't need to make excuses like a "duplicate" or another one. You don't want to make changes I suggested, it's your right, just say so. For now I'm OK with things as they are, maybe in future I'll publish my own plugin, which does just what I need. If it'll contain code, similar to yours, it'll just be a weird coincidence :D

[sindresorhus]

you don't need to make excuses like a "duplicate" or another one.

That was not an excuse. I mistakenly thought it was a duplicate. I get hundreds of duplicates and low quality issues every week that I need to handle. Once in awhile, a mistake slips through.

[benbieler]

@d-u-a-l Your build was failing due to ES6 stuff. Of course I know that this has nothing to do with your changes. It was another module.