[development] Modules: The Hit List

Dries Buytaert dries.buytaert at gmail.com
Sat Jul 8 08:47:41 UTC 2006

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/

More information about the development mailing list