Re-think folder and naming structure

[mhulse]

Via @iamchriswick in #35:

But, the name "build" confused me a bit, cause for me build sounds like something that has been built.

Maybe like this:

grunt-html-boiler
├── build
│ ├── dev
│ │ ├── images
│ │ ...
│ ├── prod
│ │ ├── 1.0.0
│ │ ...
├── work
│ ├── files
│ │ ├── .jshintrc
│ │ ├── Gruntfile.js
│ │ ├── README.md
│ │ ├── bower.json
│ │ ├── README
│ │ └── package.json
│ .editorconfig
│ .gitattributes
│ .gitignore
│ file001.txt
│ CONTRIBUTING.md
│ LICENSE
│ README.md
│ index.html

[mhulse]

Great suggestion(s).

Let me look around to see what is most common. I know that a lot of patterns I see use dist as the folder name used to put "built" files.

The main reason why I have dev and prod on the root is for the cleanliness of the production endpoint links; for example:

<link rel="stylesheet" href="http://static.foo.com/theme-name/prod/1.0.0/20151111/1/css/foo.min.css">

I guess I was trying to avoid having too many nested folders.

On the other hand, I'm totally down to re-think the current setup. In fact, if I implement #43, then my concern about too many nested folders would be moot. :)

Let me do some research and I post back here with my findings.

[mhulse]

I think I've seen src used a bit. The more I think about it, I kinda like the dev/prod dirs nested in a folder.

Thinking about #43, it might work to go with dist, and then have deployment tasks that push that folder to the appropriate server.

So, something close to what @iamchriswick suggested:

grunt-html-boiler
├── dist
│ ├── dev
│ │ ├── images
│ │ ...
│ ├── prod
│ │ ├── 1.0.0
│ │ ...
├── src
│ ├── files
│ │ ├── .jshintrc
│ │ ├── Gruntfile.js
│ │ ├── README.md
│ │ ├── bower.json
│ │ ├── README
│ │ └── package.json
│ │ ...
├ .editorconfig
├ .gitattributes
├ .gitignore
├ LICENSE
└ README.md

I'm not concrete on making this change yet. Need to do some feature branch testing first. 👍