Pradyun Gedam

Agreed. However, it's still weird that there was a change in behaviour in a backwards incompatible manner ~in a minor version release~ -- which was not noted in the changelog...

What makes you say that this was changed in 2.0.0? See the first post, which explicitly notes that the change happened in a minor version.

> PR welcome to document it. To avoid going into extensive discussion on this, I'll flag that this has been stated by a maintainer here. :)

I've gone ahead and editted OP + the title to not have information that this discussion has shown to be incorrect.

> field, which indicates that you used a too-old setuptools version to generate the sdist. I'm 100% sure that this was the case. :) I suggest running `twine check` on...

Ways I can think of addressing this: - Changing the unconditional append, to a conditional one, that is conditional on a flag/marker provided by the theme to indicate ablog support...

I don't think there's any way to be sure that things won't break -- at this point, with ABlog, [Hyrum's Law](https://www.hyrumslaw.com/) applies. Any change around template handling will be a...

> so if the `ablog` templates were in `templates/ablog/foo.html`, then other could easily over-ride them on their own? Merely moving them doesn't address the underlying issue, but it will make...

So... I think this is achievable; albeit at the cost of breaking users who are setting up custom templates in their own documentation. I'd argue it is worthwhile -- it's...

Beyond that, I'd argue that ablog should move away from [zero-based versioning](https://0ver.org/) given that one of the two concerns raised by @nabobalis here is backwards compatibility. :) (the other being...