[development] let's cleanup /misc
tss24 at cornell.edu
Thu Jan 5 16:53:02 UTC 2006
I think your originally proposed structure based on RoR hit the nail
on the head. It seems to me, that people are more concerned over the
security of an install, keeping extra modules seperate from core ones,
and making it easier to have multisite installs. Other than that, I
don't think there is too much debate over exactly how this should be
actually be implemented, provided it meets this criteria.
Perhaps as a starting point, we should define what everyone wants the
criteria of this new structure to meet? If we can agree on that, then
moving folders around shouldn't be too hard, as that is more semantics
So let me start it off, the new directory structure should:
1. Improve the security of a Drupal install by keeping all files
private, except for an index.php, no module or include files should be
accessible from a web browser
2. Core modules and includes should be completely seperated from extra
downloaded modules and themes. This should make backing up things
easier, as you only have to back up your "custom" folder instead of
all of the main Drupal ones
3. The new structure should be multisite friendly. There should *not*
be one files folder, but rather multiple ones, for multiple sites. You
don't want that pr0n site on your multsite sharing the same images as
your core business website, do you? ;-)
Please add/revise to this so we can reach a consensus on this soon enough.
Ber, once we arrive at this, the next step would be to take your RoR
structure and go through and adjust so the above criteria are met.
After that, we setup a patch to implement this, and then commit.
If we get this early in on the next release cycle, we'll have plenty
of time to make tweaks and adjust things as development moves forward.
Not only that, but it'll give us developers lots of time with the new
structure as we work on our other patches.
On 1/5/06, Bèr Kessels <ber at webschuur.com> wrote:
> Op zaterdag 31 december 2005 16:09, schreef Dries Buytaert:
> > I'm OK with making such changes as soon consensus is reached.
> Okay, but how to reach that consensus? I am a bit afraid that if we want to
> reach this on the development ML, we won't reach this at all. :/
More information about the development