Looks good to me, will have to update the Grunt and Gulp plugins for the docgen changes after this is merged/released though.

Yeah, I can take that change out if it's too much. I know we discussed renaming it a while ago, and I figure it's better to do it before 0.6 than after.

Coverage increased (+0.01%) when pulling a979da1 on 657 into af0492a on master.

Yeah, the renaming will break those two things, and probably anyone's make files (if they're using docgen). Looks good to me though.

So shall I revert the docgen change for now?

I think it's fine. It could be transparent to most of us. {grunt,gulp}-purescript could maintain backwards compatibility for a few versions with an alias. Or, just break backwards compatibility (I don't think it makes that much of a difference). @ethul @garyb thoughts?

Who uses a makefile? @michaelficarra I think does for a few projects. I'm not sure who else.

Agreed, since we're going to break it at some point sooner is probably better than later. We can update the tasks to keep the docgen name as an alias with a deprecation warning, and shouldn't be too much trouble to use either psc-docs or docgen depending on which is present.

The renaming shouldn't be a problem for gulp-purescript.

Shall I merge this then?

I've updated my Makefile in the commit linked above (78547152). The only other PureScript user that uses a Makefile that I know of is @davidchambers.

👍 for merge

FYI, @bodil has a PureScript build tool named "pulp". I've opened an issue to address this change: purescript-contrib/pulp#6.