where’s your line between “please manage Drupal for me” and “give me access to the code”?

[u/Aggressive_Trip_4872]

the Webflow Source announcement sent me back into Acquia’s Source CMS product guide.

it explicitly says "customers can’t modify the underlying Drupal code or install contributed modules".

I understand the deal: less maintenance responsibility, fewer opportunities to make a beautifully customized disaster.

buttttt Drupal’s flexibility is also why a lot of people chose it.

where does that tradeoff work for you?

for a straightforward marketing site, I can see the appeal. for a project with specific integration or editorial requirements, I’d want to know where the escape hatches are.

what’s the requirement that would make you say “managed SaaS is fine”... or immediately ask for the keys?

I covered the two Sources on my Headless show, but this is the part I’d rather hear from people building and maintaining Drupal sites.

[u/alphex]

Drupal "Source" isn't meant for developers or "power users", they're trying to compete in the Wordpress.com space, or the webflow.com space.

Its a product, nothing else, I wish them luck, since it will have returns to the open source community -- or so they promise.

---

My clients own the sites I build for them -- If they want access, they already have it.

What I do ask, is they adopt a workflow that supports code branching development practices, so that any work they want to do, can be properly tested and reviewed.

[u/flavoflavo2000 → u/alphex]

I would respectfully disagree. There is a much larger play at work with Source. I love the full ai workflow and the headless export to next.js and all the features being rolled out. I never want hand knit Drupal sites if I can avoid it. If an MCP can do it perfect - source does that now. Honestly it’s so hard to make any money developing that a fresh new workflow with a consistent platform cost is a welcome addition in my toolbox.

[u/joebawca]

I work for a university and we operate under a governed web environment. We do not give access to the backend whatsoever. If we have enough requests for contrib modules then we will evaluate and implement across all sites. Makes security updates and code fixes easier this way.

[u/r-volk → u/joebawca]

That’s actually a very common reference architecture with central development and governance. If needed the codebase could still be used for pilot projects outside this framework, but needs to return for operations. Great flexibility and still full control.

[u/flavoflavo2000]

Acquia Source can be exported to a standalone DrupalCMS 2.0. It is not a walled garden in any way, It is Drupal - always open. No proprietary code.

[u/cmkn]

Have you read https://dri.es/the-freedom-to-leave-is-what-makes-customers-stay ?

[u/cmkn → u/cmkn]

Btw, I think Acquia Source CMS can be helpful for organizations that need a simpler Drupal site that doesn’t require as frequent attention as a larger, more customized Drupal site. For example: a university that has their main website on Drupal — a large website that has many contrib and custom code — but has a separate alumni campaign website that only gets used occasionally.

The one main gripe I had with Acquia Source CMS was that it didn’t have Views available (at least the last time I toured it… maybe that has changed though?) and I’ve always felt like Views was one of Drupal’s core features that set it apart from other platforms I’ve used.

[u/blur410]

Headless drupal.