Should this project be a profile

Hi @bbrala

I spoke to Alex Milkovskyi, who will do the la_at local site with me. He said that either option works for him. An install profile was ok in his opinion and just as valid as going the config_split route.

My opinion though is that config_split is better. We have the default config in la_eu AND la_eu has folders for each local association that is part of this project. Thus we would have /DE and /AT and /NL, /CH and /FR as configuration folders that are in the la_eu repo. Drupal-Austria would then just have a hosting environment variable that would say that the config_split to be used is from /AT. This would allow us to have different languages. I think we should also say that all sites would be multi-lingual. The mono-lingual sites like Drupal-Austria would just then use EN and the native language. /CH would be able to have the 4 languages that they need.

What are your thoughts?

jjchinquist → credited grienauer → .

jjchinquist → credited kraut → .

Decided in a meeting at DrupalCamp Berlin today:
- config split will be used
- all modules & even configuration split will be committed to the LA_EU project.
- ... BUT if a country needs a module that other countries do not need, then that module is in the la_eu repository, but it is enabled / installed via the config_split / environment variables (which are managed in the downstream).
- Each country, e.g. la_at, will have a downstream Repo that will only manage the environment variables, enabling the country specific modules and the deployment pipeline specifics.

Meeting with Lember on 26 March 2025 to discuss this technical issue

We decided with Lemberg to go for the config split