The yeoman cli shouldn't "wrap" grunt.

[cowboy]

I don't see any value in the yeoman cli "wrapping" grunt.

Well, that's not entirely true. I see value for the yeoman project, promoting itself as the all-encompassing swiss army knife of developer tools. But I think you're doing a disservice to potential grunt users even if the actual code involved is minimal.

Instead of instructing these grunt users to install grunt-cli alongside grunt and familiarize themselves with the grunt command, you're asking them to install yeoman and use the yeoman command instead. This potentially creates a new class of grunt user who doesn't understand what the difference between yeoman, grunt-cli and grunt are.

When someone asks them to "run grunt" they will be confused, because they have no grunt command in their PATH.

When they publish their project, they will list yeoman as a prerequisite, even if they only use grunt and grunt-cli functionality.

Can you explain to me the value to the community in users learning to use the yeoman command to run grunt instead of the recommended grunt command?

[cowboy]

FWIW, this is in reference to the "new" yeoman and this issue #830.

[tbranyen]

This was something I had to decide with grunt-bbb as well. I had originally consumed Grunt as I would any other task running library and built my tool around it. This worked well until Grunt exploded and a community was built around it. Unlike tlua (https://github.com/norman/tlua) for instance, which nobody uses standalone, Grunt is being used almost exclusively as the command to run with the exception of Yeoman and BBB.

I've started to convert BBB over as a series of plugins and eventually will package it as a Grunt Collection. Might as well embrace the tool and support it than making it harder to use with Grunt best practices.

[cowboy]

@tbranyen As far as I can tell, they're already doing that with yeoman. But they're still recommending that users install yeoman and run the yeoman command instead of installing grunt-cli and running the grunt command.

Yeoman guys, please correct me if I'm wrong.

[addyosmani]

@cowboy you're correct on the above. We're internally discussing the pros and cons of the yeoman command but rest assured, we most definitely want to clear up the messaging around Yeoman and Grunt for 1.0. I completely empathize with your pain around folks not appreciating Grunt is running beneath the covers.

Let's fix that.

Yeoman is first and foremost a workflow. Maybe the tagline becomes "Yeoman - an opinionated workflow for Grunt". Maybe we make it clearer that Yeoman is now an opinionated collection of grunt tasks. I'm not sure what the outcome of the command discussion will be yet, but we want to ensure we're doing what's best for both communities of users at the end of the day.

[addyosmani]

We'll have a chat about this more tomorrow :) The good news is that the core team conceptually agree to no longer wrap the grunt and bower binaries. We've assessed it and this is something we could do for 1.0.

The next step forward for us is discussing a few things:

• How this would tie in to grunt init
• What the new workflow would be

[paulirish]

We resolved this wrapping issue, furthermore, we had a great call with the Yeoman and Grunt leads and covered a lot of ground

• meeting notes
• meeting slides