Publishing assets with --provider option

[suth]

Thanks for this package! Just what I needed.

One little issue I ran into was that while trying to publish the config file, I tried running vendor:publish --provider="Maknz\Slack\Laravel\ServiceProvider" to no avail. However, using vendor:publish --provider="Maknz\Slack\Laravel\ServiceProviderLaravel5" worked just fine. Don't know if this is something that can be fixed or just needs documenting.

[maknz]

Hey! We just moved the Laravel integration out of maknz/slack into this repo, and at the same time updated our docs. It's certainly possible that only the Laravel 5 provider can be used directly, but in general, a simple vendor:publish as per the README should work. Was there a problem with this, or is there a reason you use the provider directly? The --provider option is so hit and miss it's not funny, so I'm keen to understand it more.

[suth]

I'm using another package with a lot of view files I'd rather not pull into my project, so I thought it would be simpler to just specify the provider than deleting the other files. (You can also tag the asset as "config" so only config files are published)

[maknz]

Cool, awesome. What I'll do is offer the --provider flag with the Laravel 5 provider directly as an alternative in the docs (although, this was breaking for some people on the main repo, hence why it was removed). Secondly, I'll tag the config so it won't be always necessary to specify the provider exactly.

Appreciate the feedback!