[development] Very concerned over Drupal's core development

andrew morton drewish at katherinehouse.com
Mon Apr 20 17:15:20 UTC 2009

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Robert Douglass <rob at robshouse.net> wrote:
> API validation is vitally important, and should be driven by contrib.
> Contrib should be instructing core "hey, I need this in the API so that I
> can do what I want". Contrib module maintainers currently submit patches to
> core to tend to the important APIs that affect their modules. Witness Earl
> Mile's recent patch that has major ramifications on future Views
> development. http://drupal.org/node/322344
> Contrib modules are real modules. They do a fine job of finding the
> limitations and strengths of core's APIs. The feedback loop from contrib to
> core is there, and it is strong. In one direction. Most of that feedback
> currently sits idle in the core issue queue, however, and contrib module
> authors often choose to just work around core instead of enhancing it.

I think contrib authors submitting back core patches is really the
exception. I know it too me two full versions of working around a
crappy file APIs before I finally decided to wade in an experience the
utter frustration that is core development. And even then it was two
versions before things really started to improve. Someone at DCDC
described core development as not a meritocracy but a
who's-got-more-free-time-ocracy and as Nedjo identified most corporate
sponsored development doesn't come with that free time leading to the
idle feedback you identified.

> Another solution would be to split core into two parts. "Framework", and
> "CMS". The framework would be the things like user, node, block, system,
> actions, fields, etc., and the CMS would be things like poll, blog, forum
> and who knows what. The smart thing would be to make "Framework" in this
> case as small as possible, and push as much as we can into "Framework". Then
> "Framework" could adopt a nice, long release cycle and focus on big API
> changes, whereas "CMS" could focus on shorter release cycles upon any given
> "Framework" release.

I like this idea but it sort of goes into the whole "golden" module
list that seems to come up ever now and again.


More information about the development mailing list