Should this project be a profile or config split everything

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?

Decided in a meeting at DrupalCamp Berlin today:
- config split will be used. NOT an installation profile.
- 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.

We discussed this back and forth and didn't come to a final solution. We agreed to not use installation profiles, but are still undecided on how to "compose" a "localised" repository.

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

We decided with Lemberg to go for the config split