Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

(Partly) remove Grunt tasks #140

Open
swissspidy opened this issue Apr 15, 2018 · 4 comments · May be fixed by #337
Open

(Partly) remove Grunt tasks #140

swissspidy opened this issue Apr 15, 2018 · 4 comments · May be fixed by #337

Comments

@swissspidy
Copy link
Member

swissspidy commented Apr 15, 2018

A scaffolded plugin contains a bunch of Grunt tasks which I think are unnecessary and can be removed or replaced.

  • addtextdomain
    Note sure if that one is really needed. There was quite a discussion about that feature in the i18n-command repo. If anything, this could be a wp i18n addtextdomain command. (See Command to add text domains to i18n functions i18n-command#25)
  • makepot
    People can just use wp i18n make-pot to generate POT files.
  • wp_readme_to_markdown
    I don't see the point in this. If you host your plugin on WordPress.org, you need to adhere to the very specific format for readme.txt. If you host or develop your plugin on GitHub, you usually have notes for developers, information about the build status, etc. IMHO it makes more sense to have two separate files — readme.txt and readme.md with different information.

Finally, I don't see why Grunt is needed for these simple tasks. Why can't these just be simple scripts in package.json (e.g. "makepot": "wp i18n make-pot ." would be one such script)? One dependency less to worry about.

@schlessera
Copy link
Member

I agree, we should look into getting rid of Grunt altogether. The tool itself is already pretty dated, and just including it for such simple stuff is a bad practice.

@ernilambar
Copy link
Member

I am trying to make PR for this. Would this be considered breaking to be included in the future 3.0.0 or we can include this now?

@danielbachhuber
Copy link
Member

We can include it now.

@ernilambar ernilambar linked a pull request May 9, 2024 that will close this issue
@ernilambar
Copy link
Member

ernilambar commented May 9, 2024

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants