Drop the Backbone prefix – marionette.js

[jamesplease]

@thejameskyle initially brought this up, and I thought it was a good idea when I heard it so I'm documenting it with an issue. We've long been known as backbone.marionette, but I think it's time to move away from that. This prefix is typically given to small libraries that add an extra feature or two to backbone, but with our trajectory toward being a feature-rich framework that happens to work with Backbone, I think we'll do ourselves good by distancing ourselves from that nomenclature and adopting a name that's all about us.

We have the benefit of being the largest, and most well-known Backbone library, so there's less of a concern about people being unfamiliar with that requirement. By mentioning that fact in the first few sentences of any text introducing the library (the Github readme; the www) we can make it clear that we do, in fact, depend on Backbone.

Another benefit is how much shorter of a name it is. backbone.marionette is far too long.

So what actions am I suggesting we take to make this change?

1. Rename the repository to marionette.js
2. Rename the files to marionette.js instead of backbone.marionette.js
3. Register on npm and bower as marionette.js

Given that this is obviously pretty breaking, we should wait until v3 or v4 to make the switch.

What do y'all think?

[jamiebuilds]

Someone already has the npm module name "marionette", and you aren't supposed to add .js to the name.

Don't put "js" or "node" in the name. It's assumed that it's js, since you're writing a package.json file, and you can specify the engine using the "engines" field. (See below.)
https://www.npmjs.org/doc/files/package.json.html

That being said, I'm a big fan of this idea.

[samccone]

Fairly sure we can take this

https://www.npmjs.org/package/marionette

[samccone]

Ok email sent

[jamesplease]

Awesome @samccone!

[jamesplease]

Moved to #1796