Welcome to My Weird Prompts, the podcast where Daniel Rosehill sends us the weird questions rattling around in his brain and we try to make sense of them. I'm Corn, and I'm here with my co-host Herman Poppleberry. Today we're diving into something that sounds niche but is actually pretty profound - the philosophy and mechanics of forking open source projects and keeping your customizations while staying synced with upstream development.
Yeah, and what I think is fascinating here is that this isn't just a technical problem. It's a philosophical one about ownership, contribution, and when it makes sense to go solo versus staying connected to the community. Most people think about forks as this binary thing - you either contribute back or you don't. But there's this whole middle ground that doesn't get talked about enough.
Right, so to set the scene - our producer has been using this open source chore tracking app called DonTick, which sounds actually pretty cool with the NFC tag integration. But it's missing some features he wants, specifically room organization and the ability to tag multiple chores as a list. So he's thinking about forking it, adding these features himself using AI code generation, and then... well, that's where the question gets interesting.
Exactly. He wants to know if there's a way to maintain his customized version while still pulling in updates from the original project without it becoming a maintenance nightmare. And I think the honest answer is: it depends on how you architect it, and there are definitely some approaches that work better than others.
Okay, so before we get too deep in the weeds here - and I feel like we might - can you explain what a fork even is for people who aren't deep in the open source world?
Sure. When you fork a repository on GitHub or GitLab, you're essentially making a complete copy of the project at that moment in time. You get your own version with its own history, and you can modify it however you want without affecting the original project. It's not destructive - the original stays intact. Most forks are either temporary, where you plan to contribute changes back upstream, or permanent, where you've decided to take the project in a different direction.
Got it. So it's like... you're taking a recipe and saying "I'm going to make my own version of this cake."
That's actually a decent analogy, except with code it's more like you're taking the recipe, the ingredients list, the baking instructions, and the entire kitchen setup. And you can modify all of it.
So the challenge here is that if you've modified the recipe significantly - like added new ingredients and changed the cooking process - and then the original recipe creator comes out with a new edition, how do you incorporate those changes without losing your customizations?
Exactly. This is where it gets technical. There are a few approaches, and they each have trade-offs. The traditional way is called "rebasing" or "cherry-picking." Basically, you manually integrate the upstream changes into your fork. But if you've made substantial changes - like database schema migrations - that becomes really complicated fast.
Wait, I want to push back a little here though. In this specific case, isn't the answer just to maintain two separate versions? Like, keep the original and run his customized version, and if he needs upstream updates, he just manually pulls them in when they matter?
Well, that's one approach, but I'd argue that's the least elegant solution and it creates technical debt. You're essentially managing two codebases mentally. Every time there's a security update or a bug fix in upstream, you have to decide whether to manually port it over. For something like a chore tracking app, that might not be catastrophic, but for security-sensitive applications, that's a nightmare.
Okay, fair point. So what's the better way?
There are actually a few strategies, and I think the best one depends on the architecture of the project. The cleanest approach is what's called the "configuration over customization" model. Basically, you design your fork so that your changes are as isolated as possible from the core logic. You create abstraction layers.
Okay, that sounds good in theory, but can you give me a concrete example with this chore app?
Sure. So instead of modifying the core database schema directly, you could create a separate module that adds the room entity but leaves the original schema intact. You'd have a migration system that runs your additions on top of the base schema. This way, when upstream updates the original schema for their own reasons, your modifications sit on top like layers rather than being intertwined.
Hmm, but doesn't that create its own problems? Like, what if the upstream project adds a feature that fundamentally conflicts with how you've layered your modifications?
You're right, and that's the real answer to his question - there is no perfect solution. There are degrees of maintainability. The more customized you go, the harder it is to stay synced with upstream. Period.
So what you're saying is, he has to pick his poison. Either he stays closer to the upstream version and accepts that he can't have all his features, or he goes deep on customization and accepts that he's now maintaining his own fork semi-permanently?
Essentially, yes. But there's a middle path that I think is underutilized in open source communities. And this is where I think our producer is actually sitting in a good position. He should consider contributing the room feature back upstream.
Okay wait, I thought he said he didn't want to do that? He said it was something that made sense for him but might not make sense for others.
Right, and I hear that, but I'd push back on that reasoning a bit. Room-based organization for chore tracking is... not that niche. I'd argue most people who use a chore app with multiple people in a household would want to organize by room at some point. The NFC tag list feature is more specialized, sure, but the room organization? That's pretty fundamental.
But here's the thing - and I say this gently - not every feature needs to go into every project. Sometimes the project maintainer has a vision, and if your feature doesn't align with that vision, forcing it in just makes the codebase messier for everyone.
I'm not saying force it in. I'm saying he should have a conversation with the maintainer first. "Hey, I've identified this gap. Would you be interested in this feature? Here's how I'd implement it." Worst case, the maintainer says no, and then he knows he's on his own. But he might be surprised - maintainers often appreciate when users think deeply about their tool and propose thoughtful improvements.
Okay, that's fair. But let's say the maintainer does say no, or doesn't respond. What then? What's the actual technical approach to maintaining a customized fork?
Alright, so there are a few patterns. The first is what I mentioned - the abstraction layer approach. You keep your modifications as isolated as possible. For a Docker-deployed app, this actually works pretty well because you control the deployment environment. You could have a base Docker image built from upstream, and then your customizations are applied as additional layers in your own Dockerfile.
How would that actually work though? Like, if he needs to change the database schema, that's not just a Docker layer thing, right?
Correct. That's where it gets thorny. If you need database schema changes, you have a few options. One is to create a migration system that's separate from the core application. So your fork runs the upstream migrations first, then runs your custom migrations on top. This way, the schema has the base structure plus your additions.
But doesn't that mean he's stuck with all the upstream schema too? Even if he doesn't need parts of it?
Exactly. Which is why this is a trade-off. You gain the ability to pull upstream updates, but you're carrying some technical baggage. The alternative is to fully fork the schema and accept that you're now maintaining your own version independently.
So really, what he's asking is whether he can have his cake and eat it too, and the answer is kind of no?
The answer is "it depends on how much cake you want." If his customizations are relatively small and isolated, he can maintain a reasonably tight connection to upstream. If they're substantial architectural changes - which schema migrations kind of are - then he's accepting a degree of independence.
Okay, so let me ask you this differently. In the open source world, is there a best practice for this? Like, what do successful forks do?
Oh, absolutely. Look at something like MariaDB, which is a fork of MySQL. They've managed to stay reasonably compatible while diverging significantly. They do this through careful version management and clear deprecation policies. But here's the thing - MariaDB has a team of developers. For a solo maintainer of a personal fork, that level of coordination is unrealistic.
Right, which brings me back to my point about whether he should just accept that he's maintaining his own version. Like, if it's just him using it, maybe the overhead of trying to stay synced with upstream is actually more work than just... maintaining it independently?
That's actually a fair point, and I think it depends on the activity level of the upstream project. If DonTick is actively maintained and getting security updates, then yes, staying loosely synced makes sense. If it's a slower-moving project, the maintenance overhead might be minimal anyway.
Let's take a quick break from our sponsors.
Larry: Tired of wrestling with version conflicts and merge errors? Introducing UpstreamSync Pro - the revolutionary software that uses patented AI-assisted temporal reconciliation to automatically merge your fork with upstream changes without requiring you to understand what's actually happening. Users report that their code "definitely compiles" and that merge conflicts "mostly disappear." Some users have experienced unexpected feature interactions, backwards incompatible changes, and their entire database transforming into what appears to be interpretive poetry, but hey, at least you don't have to think about it. UpstreamSync Pro - because who has time to actually maintain their infrastructure? BUY NOW!
...Alright, thanks Larry. Anyway, I think we should talk about the practical strategies here because I don't want listeners thinking this is impossible.
Yeah, let's get into some concrete tactics.
Okay, so first tactic - and this is what I'd actually recommend for our producer - is to use a feature branch strategy. He keeps his fork updated with upstream regularly, but his customizations live in a separate branch or set of branches that he maintains. This way, the master branch stays relatively clean and easy to merge with upstream, but his features are isolated.
Okay, that makes sense. So he's not trying to merge everything together, he's keeping them separate?
Exactly. When upstream updates, he pulls those updates into his base branch, then he can selectively rebase his feature branches on top if needed. It's more manual than he might want, but it's maintainable.
But doesn't that mean he has to do merges every time upstream updates? That sounds like a lot of work.
It can be, yeah. But here's the thing - if he's only checking upstream occasionally, it's not that bad. And modern tools like Git make this easier than it used to be. You can automate a lot of it.
What about the Docker aspect? He mentioned he's deploying this as a Docker image. Does that change the calculus?
Actually, Docker makes this easier in some ways. He can use a multi-stage Docker build where you pull the upstream code, apply patches or modifications, and build it all in one shot. There are tools specifically for this - things like Docker multi-stage builds or even scripts that can patch the code during the build process.
So he could have a build script that says "pull the latest upstream, apply my modifications, then build the Docker image"?
Exactly. And if there are conflicts in the modifications, the build fails and he knows he needs to manually intervene. That's actually not a bad workflow for a personal project.
Okay, I'm warming up to this. But what about the database migration problem? That seems like the thorniest issue.
It is. So here's my recommendation for that specifically. Instead of modifying the existing schema, create a separate migration system. Your fork runs the upstream migrations first, then runs your custom migrations. This way, your schema is base schema plus your additions, not a replacement of the base schema.
But won't that create orphaned tables or fields that he's not using?
Potentially, yeah. But that's kind of the cost of staying synced with upstream. If he doesn't want that cost, he goes fully independent and accepts that he's maintaining his own version.
I keep coming back to this - is it actually worth staying synced? Like, what's the real benefit for a personal project?
Security updates, bug fixes, and the possibility of upstream improvements that don't conflict with his changes. But you're right to question it. For a personal chore tracking app, the security surface is probably small, and the bug fix benefit is limited if the app is already working for him.
So maybe the real answer is that he should just fork it, make his modifications, and not worry too much about staying synced?
I wouldn't say don't worry at all, but I'd say the overhead of maintaining tight sync might not be worth it. Maybe he checks in on upstream once a year, sees if there's anything important, and pulls it in if it makes sense.
Alright, we've got a caller on the line. Go ahead, you're on the air.
Jim: Yeah, this is Jim from Ohio. I've been listening to you two go on about forks and merges and all this nonsense, and I gotta say, you're way overthinking this. The whole thing is simpler than you're making it. Just modify the dang code and be done with it. Don't need all this fancy branch strategy mumbo jumbo. My neighbor Dale has a garden, and he just does what he wants with it - doesn't spend all his time worrying about "staying synced" with the neighborhood gardening club or whatever. Anyway, it was humid as heck here yesterday.
I hear you, Jim. I think the point we're trying to make is that if he wants to benefit from upstream updates without losing his changes, there are technical approaches that make that easier.
Jim: Yeah, but does he actually need those updates? That's what I'm saying. You're treating this like it's some mission-critical system that needs constant maintenance. It's a chore app. Make your changes, move on, live your life.
Well, I'd push back a little, Jim. Security updates in particular can matter even for small personal projects. If there's a vulnerability in a library the app depends on, that could affect him.
Jim: Fine, fine. Pull in the security updates when they happen. But all this talk about merge strategies and feature branches? That's overthinking it for a personal project. Also, my cat Whiskers has been acting weird lately - just stares at the wall for hours. Probably nothing.
That's fair feedback, Jim. I think what you're saying is that for a personal project, the overhead of sophisticated version management might genuinely not be worth it.
Jim: That's all I'm saying. You two are brilliant, but sometimes you need to just keep it simple. Anyway, thanks for taking my call.
Thanks for calling in, Jim. We appreciate the reality check.
You know, Jim actually made a decent point there, even if he delivered it in true Jim fashion. For a personal project that's not mission-critical, the complexity of maintaining tight sync with upstream might genuinely be overkill.
So what would you actually recommend to our producer, if you had to boil it down?
Alright, here's my actual recommendation. One, reach out to the maintainer and propose the room feature. It's worth a shot, and it might save you a ton of maintenance work. Two, if they say no or don't respond, fork it and make your modifications. Three, use a Docker-based build process that's version-controlled, so you can reproduce your customizations reliably. Four, check upstream occasionally - maybe quarterly - and pull in updates that don't conflict with your changes. Five, use a migration system that adds your schema changes on top of the base schema rather than replacing it.
And if he discovers that the maintenance is too much?
Then he's still fine. He has a working fork that does what he needs. The worst case is he's running an older version of the software, which for a personal chore app is not a disaster.
I think the broader lesson here is that open source doesn't have to be binary. You don't have to be either a contributor or completely independent. There's this whole spectrum of engagement, and people don't talk about it enough.
Exactly. And I'd add that the open source community could actually be more welcoming to this middle ground. Not every fork needs to become a separate project, and not every customization needs to be contributed back. There's value in people maintaining their own versions of software tailored to their specific needs.
So the takeaway for listeners - if you find an open source project that's almost right but missing something, don't assume you have to either contribute it back or give up on the project. There are legitimate ways to customize it for your needs while maintaining some connection to upstream if that's important to you.
And the technical reality is that it's easier than ever to do this, especially with tools like Docker, code generation with AI, and modern version control. Our producer could genuinely have a customized version running in a few hours, and the maintenance burden is probably lighter than he thinks.
Yeah, and honestly, the fact that he's even asking this question suggests he's thinking about it the right way. He's not just hacking something together - he's thinking about maintainability and staying connected to the project. That's good engineering instinct.
Agreed. I think he should start with the conversation with the maintainer, and then go from there. And if he does fork it, the Docker multi-stage build approach with isolated schema migrations is probably his best bet for staying loosely synced without going crazy.
Alright, so real quick - any resources or tools he should know about for this kind of work?
Yeah, a few. Git itself has great documentation on forking and rebasing. Docker has solid examples of multi-stage builds. For the schema migration side, if he's using SQLite, there's a tool called Alembic that works well for managing migrations independently. And honestly, Claude or similar AI tools are genuinely useful for helping you think through the architecture before you start coding.
Good recommendations. Thanks for digging into this with me, Herman. This was way more nuanced than I expected when we started.
Yeah, and I appreciate Jim calling in to remind us not to overcomplicate things for personal projects. Sometimes the simplest solution really is the right one.
Alright, listeners, that's this week's episode of My Weird Prompts. If you've got your own weird prompts rattling around in your brain, you can reach out to the show, and if we pick yours, you might hear it discussed here. You can find My Weird Prompts on Spotify and wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks for listening, and we'll see you next time.
Thanks everyone, and happy forking.
