On 08 Jul 2006, at 07:38, Jeff Eaton wrote:
Since it's turning into this discussion again, I figure I'll lay out what *I* think should be cut, and why.
I'm _not_ OK with removing the aggregator, forum module or poll module -- to name a few of the modules on Jeff's list. The only module I'd be happy to remove is the archive module. It's not about what modules you use or what modules you care about. It is all about trust. It looks like many of you underestimate the importance of core's quality label in terms of security, performance, upgradability, sustainability, consistency, etc. Many people don't trust contributed modules, and rightly so. After all, many of them are insecure, are not being updated in a timely fashion, or have inconsistent user interfaces (ie. They Cap Each Word In A Title -- which is super-annoying for some people). So having all these modules in core looks vital to me. Rather than removing all those modules, I'd like to see us improve them. Worse, I'd like to add more modules to core: image handling, node-level access, workflow, views, cck, i18n, etc. ;-) People continue to point out that install profiles will solve things. Maybe. First, install profiles and distributions are still vaporware. Secondly, it might take 1-2 years for an install profile or distribution to earn sufficient trust in terms of security, performance, upgradability, sustainability, consistency, etc. Picking a distribution's modules takes 20 minutes. Creating the distribution's .install-file takes 60 minutes. Maintaining and harnessing the distribution will take thousands of hours, and ultimately, is what gains you trust. Please stop missing the point. Thanks. :) -- Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/