Rename install profiles to distributions.

Maybe .dist instead of .distribution

+1 for this, Profiles is/could be a confusing term.

+1 on this.

.distribution is too long though.

Would .dist be better?

+1. Less confusing terminology is always "a good thing." :)

.distrubution is a full word which can be Googled/Babelfished for non-native English speaking people to figure out what the files are for. We tend to not abbreviate elsewhere in core, afaik (.module files are not .mod files). So I prefer .distribution over .dist, but whatever the consensus is.

Note that this change should coincide with an addition to .htaccess to exclude .distribution (or .dist or whatever) from the viewable files.

I see the issue. But I don't see what we're building as distributions.

By 'distribution', I think of something like the Wikipedia description of a bundle of a specific software that is downloadable from the internet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_distribution).

In many cases, a single distribution of Drupal will include multiple what-we're-calling 'profiles'. Consider CivicSpace. It's a single distribution--you download and install it. But it has several different profiles--runtime install streams that customize the way the distribution is installed and configured.

So if we can come up with another term that conveys this better than 'profile', great, but 'distribution' doesn't seem to fit.

-1

I think profile is actually a pretty appropriate term. As nedjo said this doesn't make sense for a lot of distributers like CivicSpace. Say I'm running a hypothetical distribution called NecDrupal bundled with "Super Blogger", "Corporate Site" and "Monster E-Commerce" distributions. Each one is a distribution of my NecDrupal distribution. Confused yet?

Now if I say I'm running a Drupal distribution called NecDrupal bundled with "Super Blogger", "Corporate Site" and "Monster E-Commerce" profiles. Each one is a profile of my NecDrupal distribution. That makes a lot more sense to me.

profile is confusing and ambiguous, since we already have another component in Drupal called profile (the profile module).

This is not good.

So, it has to be changed, to dist, distro, distribution or something else, but in all cases it has not to be "profile".

Here are my thoughts.

1) A distribution is a particular collection of modules, themes, and related files that give Drupal the capability to fill a particular targeted niche.

2) A 'profile,' as folks are talking about in this thread, seems to be a particular set of configuration options. A list of modules to be enabled, a theme to select as the default, etc.

3) Adrian's recent patch to provide sub-directories that can hold modules and themes makes the 'profiles' directory in Drupal more like a 'distributions' directory. Whether each of these distributions can hold multiple site profiles is another question

I think profile is actually a pretty appropriate term. As nedjo said this doesn't make sense for a lot of distributers like CivicSpace. Say I'm running a hypothetical distribution called NecDrupal bundled with "Super Blogger", "Corporate Site" and "Monster E-Commerce" distributions. Each one is a distribution of my NecDrupal distribution. Confused yet?

Only because you're misusing the terminology that you created. What's a 'distribution of a distribution?' For that matter, what's a 'profile of a profile?' In the case you outlined above, you should just create three separate distros, profiles, whatever.

I guess things like Civicspace were called distributions in the past.

If we want to name the new thing .dist (or .distribution), then we can repackage the Civicspace in a .dist and that would be a distro. I am not familiar witht the details of Civicspace, and this may not be all there is (e.g. installer, ...etc.)

How about .collection or .group (this may clash with organic groups as a nomenclature)?

.bundle ?

What about "install schemas"?

Whatever it is, it's not happening soon. :-)

I'm tempted to won't fix this, tbh. Regardless of what the optimal name for these should've been, "install[ation] profiles" is what we've been calling them for 2 releases now, our documentation (and source code) refers to them as such, etc. Changing the name at this point will cause far more confusion than the ambiguity between profile module and install profiles.

*nods in sage agreement with webchick.

I agree with webchick, the name has been around for too long now.

I agree that it is too late, but let us learn a lesson to try to solve these issues early on, before "legacy" catches up with us and we can't change things.