On 5/8/05, Adrian Rossouw <adrian@bryght.com> wrote:
On 08 May 2005, at 2:36 PM, K B wrote:
What do other developers think of this? It will address one gripe that people have, which is the difficulty of doing upgrades.
My install system would address that too.
That is great.
I just don't like it because of the extra typing it requires of me, but I like the idea of seperating contrib and core modules/themes.
Yes. core, contrib AND configuration. This way Drupal core upgrade is very simple. Just rename the existing drupal directory and copy a new one in its place. The less we make people change things, the easier the upgrade is.
Also, the name drupal-local is bleh. I recommend local.
There could be name clashes with such a generic name. How about drlocal or something like that? We can even make that name configurable, by changing a file under the drupal directory, but then we are back to "configuration files under code directory" thing which we tried to avoid in the first place. Also, if we expand the idea a bit more, we may want to move the 'drupal' directory on level above public_html. This way, only Drupal can include files from it, and they are not accessible to anyone else, hence can be seen as added security (not that Drupal is insecure or anything). This helps in cases where a host configuration gets botches up and php files are served as plain text, and people can see the passwords in the settings.php and other info. This has drawbacks though, it adds complexity for people who only have one directory they serve content from, and not the parent.