Lack of updates
At the time of writing, this blog uses Pelican to convert the Markdown blog content into publishable HTML. And, if you noticed from the dates on my posts, there has been just over a year between the last post and this one. This was mainly because there was considerable work needed to get this blog setup up-to-date: both in upgrading Pelican to the latest version, and pulling in updates to the theme.
Updating the theme was made slightly more complicated by the migration of the theme from its original repository. The new home became the pelican-themes repository, not as a submodule but as the definitive repository for that theme.
In the past, it was simpler for me to simply pull request changes from
the parent of my theme's fork directly into my fork. Instead, I had to
restructure my repository slightly and start to
individual commits that were applied to the theme within the repository.
Anyway, I've caught up on the maintenance. Bootstrap 3 is now end-of-life so there is a longer term issue of this theme still being stuck on it. If I end up migrating to a new theme, it might be worth investigating using Hugo instead of Pelican at the same time. Hugo has increased in popularity considerably since I started using Pelican.
Learning from other projects
While spending a fair amount of time updating my theme and working with the pelican-themes repository, I had chance to think about how the pelican-themes repository is structured and lessons I've learned just from having to work with it.
Reading and understanding — or at least attempting to understand — other people's source code is a way of picking up new ideas or concepts. What might also be useful for learning is looking at projects you use as a whole. How are they organised? How does that makes them easy or difficult to work with?
There is a caveat that even a public source code repository doesn't necessarily yield all the decision making that went on to get it to such a state. Some of that process may indeed be located with the source repository, e.g. pull request comment threads or issues. Some of that process may be separate to the source repository, but still public, e.g. public mailing lists. Some of that process may be entirely private, e.g. emails or private working documents. Some of it may be undocumented at all and reside entirely within maintainers' heads.
The tone of this post shouldn't be considered as a ranting "why, oh why, is this project not doing things the way I suggest?" post, but primarily an exercise to just consider and note other ways it could have been structured.
It's an actively maintained project, and the maintainers are volunteering considerable amounts of their own time doing just that.
In many projects, whether by a single developer or a team, whether commercial and proprietary or open source, it's also entirely believable that there's no long-term maintenance plan from the outset. At the start, it's not even known whether the project will have a long-term future. The first commit of pelican-themes was in February 2011, making it nine years old in 2020. Often, things do just get worked out along the way.
The current state
pelican-themes is a mixture of submodules and themes whose files exist entirely in the repository. The included non-submodule themes sometimes (if not often or even always) use the pelican-themes repository as their definitive home. There are a few problems I've seen with this approach, exemplified by the theme I am currently using my own fork of, pelican-bootstrap3.
Back when pelican-bootstrap3 was still maintained by its original developer, there were actually changes made to the version in pelican-themes that diverged from pelican-bootstrap3. pelican-bootstrap3 within pelican-themes was then updated by simply a straight copy over of the then-current version of the upstream theme, losing the changes made to the pelican-themes version. Apart from losing work, this process can be potentially confusing for users not directly following the development process; you can have something that was fixed, then unfixed.
Later, the official home of pelican-bootstrap3 became the pelican-themes repository as the original developer no longer wanted to support it. This had a couple of consequences.
First, it meant that the pelican-themes maintainers adopted the extra maintenance work of a popular theme. Those maintainers may not even use the theme. This means that pull requests can languish, perhaps because the maintainers don't feel that comfortable merging substantial changes or don't have strong opinions on whether the proposed changes are worthwhile. For pelican-bootstrap3, at the time of writing in December 2019, there are several unmerged pull requests on pelican-themes right now, even as far back as 2016. Pull requests left unloved and unmerged are a deterrent to other developers who may be considering contributing other changes.
Second, even if pull requests are regularly merged, there may be less of a definitive direction taken than if maintainers have strong opinions about where that subproject is headed. It can also lead to a lack of quality assurance. For pelican-bootstrap3, an example is this translation feature. Such a feature is one that's useful to lots of people, but unfortunately it broke things for users who didn't have the same plugin configuration as the original author, affecting those users who did not intend to use the new feature.
How else might pelican-themes be managed?
That's how things are structured in pelican-themes now. I did think about other ways the repository might have been structured taking the above features of how it works right now into account.
pelican-themes could simply have been a list of links to themes, solely a reference resource.
The advantage of this is no management on the part of the pelican-themes maintainers is required except to add new themes or remove themes that are no longer supported or unavailable. In many cases, once a theme is added, that would be as much as is ever required to be done for that theme. The big disadvantage is that you can't just clone the entire repository and have all the themes ready to use.
There could be a "more strongly" monorepo version of what there is now, that is, pelican-themes could be a pure monorepo with no submodules. This now means that every theme has to be hand-maintained by copying from the upstream version repository, if pelican-themes isn't the original repository for a theme. This doesn't, however, solve the problem of having a mixture of maintained and unmaintained themes.
Going completely in the opposite direction is an option too: have every theme in pelican-themes included as a submodule. This has the advantage that pull requests into pelican-themes would be simple, simply reflecting a submodule update to the parent repository's current release.
It would mean that every theme in pelican-themes where pelican-themes is the definitive repository for that theme would need to be moved to its own individual repository. However, breaking out the themes in this way might make it easier for those themes to be managed by specific maintainers for each theme only (provided volunteers could be found), as opposed to the current agglomerate repository maintained by developers who may not use most of the themes present.
Of course, the problems described above are easy to spot when using a project that's been around a while, but perhaps subtle at a project's inception. I think this is symptomatic of software development. It is possible to build something that takes on a direction beyond that originally envisaged, especially projects that have many contributors or maintainers over time, each of which may have their own opinions as to how such a project should be nurtured.