Mkdocs-quiz Plugin Rewrite: A Discussion & Future

Hey there! This article dives into an interesting discussion surrounding the mkdocs-quiz plugin, a valuable tool for integrating quizzes directly into MkDocs documentation. We'll explore a user's experience, a significant rewrite proposal, and the crucial question of how to best move forward with such a project in the open-source world. This is a fascinating case study in plugin development, community contribution, and navigating breaking changes.

The Original Plugin and a User's Vision

The story begins with @skyface753, the creator of the original mkdocs-quiz plugin. This plugin filled a specific need: the ability to define multiple-choice questions inline within Markdown content for MkDocs. For those unfamiliar, MkDocs is a fast, simple static site generator geared towards building project documentation. The plugin allowed for interactive learning and knowledge assessment within documentation itself, a powerful feature for training materials and educational content.

@Phil Ewels, a user of the plugin, found it incredibly useful for creating training materials for Nextflow, a workflow management system. He successfully implemented the plugin for their training material, integrating quizzes into the documentation. However, Phil had some ideas for improvements and tweaks that could further enhance the plugin's functionality and user experience. This is where the story takes an interesting turn, highlighting the potential and challenges of open-source contributions.

Phil's initial tweaks and ideas quickly evolved into a more ambitious project. He essentially ended up rewriting the plugin from scratch. This was no small undertaking, involving significant changes to the syntax, parsing, and overall functionality. While the core purpose of the plugin remained the same – embedding quizzes in MkDocs – the implementation was vastly different. This situation raises important questions about how to best contribute such substantial changes to an existing project. When a contribution is so large that it fundamentally alters the original codebase, careful consideration is needed to ensure a smooth transition and avoid disrupting existing users. This often involves weighing the benefits of the new features against the potential drawbacks of breaking changes and the maintenance burden on the original maintainer.

A Major Rewrite: Features and Considerations

So, what exactly did this mkdocs-quiz plugin rewrite entail? Phil's fork, available at https://github.com/ewels/mkdocs-quiz/, showcases the extensive changes. He also created a dedicated documentation site (https://ewels.github.io/mkdocs-quiz/) with examples, demonstrating the new features and syntax. An example of the plugin in action can be seen in a deployment preview for Nextflow training materials (https://deploy-preview-694--nextflow-training.netlify.app/ko/hello_nextflow/01_hello_world/#quiz).

The rewrite encompasses a wide range of modifications, including:

• Syntax Enhancements: The way quizzes are defined within the Markdown content has been altered, likely to improve readability, flexibility, or ease of use. This is a significant change, as existing quizzes created with the original syntax would need to be updated.
• Parsing Improvements: The engine that interprets the quiz syntax and converts it into interactive elements has been overhauled. This could lead to better performance, more robust error handling, or the ability to support more complex quiz structures.
• Functionality Expansion: The rewrite likely introduces new features and capabilities. This could include different question types (e.g., true/false, fill-in-the-blanks), feedback mechanisms, scoring, or integration with learning management systems. The addition of new functionality is a key driver for many rewrites, as it allows the plugin to better meet user needs.

These changes, while potentially beneficial, come with a significant caveat: they are breaking changes. This means that users currently relying on the original mkdocs-quiz plugin would need to adapt their quizzes to the new syntax and functionality. Breaking changes are a common challenge in software development, especially in open-source projects where maintaining backward compatibility can be a delicate balancing act. The decision to introduce breaking changes requires careful consideration of the potential disruption to existing users and the long-term benefits of the new features.

The sheer scale of the rewrite – over 5000 lines of code – further complicates the situation. Integrating such a large change into the original plugin would require a substantial review effort from the maintainer (@skyface753). They would also be responsible for maintaining the new codebase going forward. This raises the question of how much responsibility a maintainer should take on for a contribution, especially when it represents a fundamental shift in the plugin's architecture.

The Question of Contribution: Three Paths Forward

Faced with this situation, Phil thoughtfully presented three potential paths forward to @skyface753. Each option has its own set of implications for the plugin, its users, and the maintainers involved. This thoughtful approach highlights the importance of communication and collaboration in open-source projects, especially when dealing with significant changes.

Let's examine these options in detail:

1. The PR Route: Breaking Changes Upstream

This option involves submitting a pull request (PR) to the original mkdocs-quiz repository with the entire rewrite. If accepted, the changes would be published to the existing plugin, effectively replacing the original version. To mitigate the impact of breaking changes, Phil suggests ideally being added as a maintainer to the repository and PyPI (the Python Package Index). This would allow him to push fixes, improvements, and releases, essentially taking over the maintenance of the code. This option represents the most direct way to integrate the rewrite into the existing ecosystem, but it also carries the most risk of disruption for current users. The original maintainer would need to be comfortable with the scope of the changes and the responsibility of maintaining the new codebase.

Submitting a pull request (PR) for such a significant overhaul to the original repository is a bold move. It signals a commitment to integrating the new functionality into the existing ecosystem and providing a seamless upgrade path for users. However, this path is not without its challenges. The original maintainer, @skyface753, would need to thoroughly review the extensive changes, understand the new architecture, and assess its impact on existing users. This review process can be time-consuming and requires a deep understanding of both the original plugin and the rewrite.

If the PR is accepted, the responsibility for maintaining the significantly altered codebase would fall on @skyface753 (and potentially Phil, if added as a maintainer). This includes addressing bug reports, implementing new features, and ensuring compatibility with future versions of MkDocs. The long-term maintenance burden is a crucial factor to consider when evaluating such a substantial contribution.

2. The Fork and Publish: A New Identity

This option involves treating the rewrite as a new project. Phil would keep his fork separate and publish it under a new name, perhaps something like mkdocs-quizzes. While giving credit to @skyface753 in the README, the project would otherwise be treated as a distinct entity. This approach avoids breaking changes for existing mkdocs-quiz users, but it also creates a split in the ecosystem. Users would need to choose between the original plugin and the new alternative. This is often the most pragmatic approach when dealing with substantial rewrites, as it allows for innovation without disrupting existing users.

Choosing to fork the project and publish it under a new name offers a clean break from the original plugin. This allows Phil to release his rewrite without directly impacting existing mkdocs-quiz users. It also provides him with full control over the project's direction and development. This independence can be empowering, allowing for rapid iteration and experimentation without the constraints of maintaining backward compatibility.

However, this path also has its drawbacks. By creating a new plugin, the user base is effectively split. Users must now choose between the original mkdocs-quiz and the new mkdocs-quizzes (or whatever name is chosen). This can lead to confusion and fragmentation within the MkDocs ecosystem. Additionally, the burden of building a community and gaining adoption for the new plugin falls entirely on Phil. He would need to actively promote the project and demonstrate its value to potential users.

3. The Nuclear Option: Plugin Transfer

This option, described as the "nuclear option," involves @skyface753 transferring ownership of the mkdocs-quiz plugin (including the PyPI project) to Phil. This would give Phil complete control over the project's name and maintenance. The rationale behind this option is that @skyface753 hasn't had any commits in a couple of years, suggesting the plugin might not be actively maintained. If @skyface753 was willing to hand over the project, Phil could take over, keeping the project name and ensuring continued maintenance. This is the most drastic option, but it can be a viable solution when the original maintainer is no longer able or willing to dedicate time to the project. This is a rare but sometimes necessary step in open-source, especially for projects with limited maintenance activity.

Transferring ownership of the plugin is the most dramatic option, but it can be the most effective in certain situations. If @skyface753 is no longer actively maintaining mkdocs-quiz and is willing to hand over the reins, this option allows Phil to seamlessly integrate his rewrite while preserving the original plugin's name and identity. This avoids the fragmentation of the user base and ensures that existing users can benefit from the improvements.

However, this option requires a high degree of trust and cooperation between @skyface753 and Phil. @skyface753 must be confident that Phil is capable and willing to maintain the plugin responsibly. Phil, in turn, would inherit the plugin's existing user base and the responsibility for addressing their needs. This option also raises questions about the long-term vision for the plugin. Will Phil continue to support the original functionality alongside the rewrite? How will he communicate the changes to users? These are important considerations that need to be addressed before a transfer of ownership can occur.

A Preference for Separation: Minimizing Disruption

Phil's inclination towards option (2), keeping the fork separate and publishing under a new name, is understandable. It represents a pragmatic approach that minimizes disruption to existing users while allowing for innovation and experimentation. This approach acknowledges the potential pain points of breaking changes and prioritizes a smoother transition for the community. This highlights a key consideration in open-source development: balancing innovation with user experience.

His willingness to engage in this discussion with @skyface753 demonstrates a commitment to open-source principles and community collaboration. By seeking input from the original author, Phil is ensuring that the decision-making process is transparent and inclusive. This collaborative spirit is essential for the health and sustainability of open-source projects.

Key Takeaways for Open-Source Projects

This situation offers valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities of open-source development, particularly concerning plugin ecosystems and substantial contributions. Here are some key takeaways:

• Communication is Crucial: Open and transparent communication between contributors and maintainers is essential, especially when dealing with significant changes. Discussing options, potential impacts, and long-term maintenance considerations is vital.
• Breaking Changes Require Careful Consideration: Introducing breaking changes should not be taken lightly. Weigh the benefits of new features against the potential disruption to existing users. Provide clear migration paths and documentation when breaking changes are necessary.
• Multiple Paths to Contribution: There isn't a single "right" way to contribute to open-source projects. Sometimes a PR is the best approach, while other times a fork and new project are more appropriate. Consider the specific context and the potential impact on the community.
• Maintainership Matters: Maintaining an open-source project is a significant responsibility. Be realistic about your capacity to review contributions, address issues, and ensure long-term stability.
• Community Collaboration is Key: Open-source thrives on collaboration. Engage with users, solicit feedback, and work together to build better software.

This discussion surrounding the mkdocs-quiz plugin serves as a compelling case study in open-source collaboration and decision-making. The outcome will be interesting to observe, as it will shape the future of the plugin and potentially influence how similar situations are handled in other open-source projects. By openly discussing these challenges and exploring different options, the community can learn and grow together.

Conclusion

The mkdocs-quiz plugin rewrite discussion exemplifies the dynamic nature of open-source development. It highlights the importance of considering various factors—user impact, maintenance burden, and community fragmentation—when making significant changes to a project. Phil's thoughtful approach in engaging with the original author, @skyface753, showcases the collaborative spirit that drives the open-source community. The outcome of this discussion will not only shape the future of the mkdocs-quiz plugin but also serve as a valuable lesson for other open-source projects facing similar challenges. For further insights into open-source best practices and community management, explore resources like the Open Source Guides.