I am in agreement with this line of thinking, but I also feel like the whole modules arena is getting to be wild territory. In the long run, perhaps it will make sense to have an "inner circle" of modules in addition to a clean and fast core. The collection of modules wouldn't necessarily be distributed with core, but represent an array of non-overlapping functionality. Pehaps this is achieved through votes or a certain level of maturity. It is just starting to get to the point where the module list is getting unwieldy and it isn't clear what each is doing, so there's overlap and inexperience. The tier of "approved" modules would presumably not suffer this problem, so if they do include patches to core it won't be as big of a concern. This lets core stay clean and efficient, diffuses some module confusion and - where appropriate - lets modules themselves provide interim solutions. On Friday, April 22, 2005, at 04:22 AM, Jose A. Reyero wrote:
I completely agree with Ber on this one.
And I think we should go for a smaller core and then some distributions with pre-packaged modules and specific patches. And we should start separating concepts like 'Drupal core' and 'standard distribution'.
Bèr Kessels wrote:
A big -1 from me. Drupals core must be small, clean and most of all very stable. I beleive Drupal would benefit most from a linux alike idea: kernel and distro;s. A kernel (drupal core) is very conservative, vey well maintained and very strict in what it accepts. Its up to the distros to add modules, themes and pre-configured databases and ship that as their distro. And off course a distro could ship with patches applied to its particular core. For example a DrupalI18N would be a nice distro.
Allie Micka pajunas interactive, inc. http://www.pajunas.com/ scalable web hosting and open source solutions