brunch as dependency

[ilkosta]

Why insert brunch as dependency?
I think it is preferable to indicate that brunch must be present (preferably system-wide) and that the user can run npm install normally.

I think that the presence of a init.sh script can alienate novice windows users. It can be replaced by a init.js but I think that this is a false problem.

What do you think about?

[kylefinley]

I have been thinking a lot about this. The initial reason for the scripts was simply following what had been done in angular-seed. You are correct in that using only bash my alienate Windows user, though. What do you think about using npm? E.g.:

npm init to replace ./scripts/init.sh
npm start to replace ./scripts/server.sh
npm test to replace ./scripts/test.sh

This would keep things consistent and allow us to use the local version i.e. node_modules/brunch/bin/brunch of brunch and testacular.

The only scripts left would be:

./scripts/development.sh and ./scripts/production.sh which are less often used, and could use brunch directly.

And ./scripts/compile-tests.sh which I would like to remove anyways. I'm thinking about switching to mocha + Chai because they allow you to right tests in coffeescript directly.

Do you think that use npm would work?

[ilkosta]

I can not tell you much about which test system to use because I'm really ignorant about them.
For the others scripts replacement, I think that's a good way to simplify things, although I have not tested that everything will work.