[development] Install profiles tutorial for Drupal 4.7, Friday 8AM PST

[Khalid B]

On 6/9/06, Steven Wittens <steven at acko.net> wrote:
> > Why:
> >   In contribs they can settle out. Become nice. Grow onto people.
> >   In contribs they can conpete. I still think that there are other
> > ways that
> > make just as well a candidate for core. My own sympal scripts are
> > just one of
> > the possibilities. we are now getting apt-get alike module
> > installers in.
> > Fixtures are still in the make.
> >
> > Why stare blind on one install system that is not tested, not
> > mature and has
> > not proved to be the Right Solution? Why depend only on those that
> > can review
> > patches, when we have a huge reviewing organism called "contribs"?
> > Only
> > because the Mob demands install systems? If they do so, lets give
> > it, in
> > contribs. And let that Mob sort out what the best stuff is, what
> > needs fixed
> > and what should be changed.
>
> I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree more.
>
> Contrib is nice, and it's an essential part of Drupal at large. But I
> don't think anyone would pretend for one minute that contrib modules
> get as much and as thorough a reviewing as a core patch. In contrib,
> the rule is "if it works, I'm happy" aka scratch-your-own-itch.

Steven

In many cases, contrib is easier to review and contribute to that core.
A patch to a contrib module is often the decision of one or two people
while in core, many people poke wholes in it, criticize it for style,
philosophy,
UI, and tear it apart.

It takes far more energy and effort to push something to core than to a contrib
module.

This does not necessarily mean that in the case at hand (installer) I want it
to go to contrib first as Ber is advocating, but in other cases, this
has merits.

If anything, having a command line option is a really nice idea. On that front,
we can change how drupal_set_message() and other functions behave.
Perhaps checking the user agent (empty) would suffice here.