Skip to content

NodeBB v4.0.0 — Federate good times, come on!

Uncategorized
116 66 939

Diese Artikel könnten Dich auch interessieren.

  • FEP-9098: Custom emojis has been published.

    Uncategorized activitypub fep
    2
    0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    15 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    silverpill@mitra.social I thought the plural of Emoji was Emoji
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • What drew you to ActivityPub?

    ActivityPub activitypub dotsocial blogs
    5
    0 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    21 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    > Getting a critical mass of people to create yet another account was always a major obstacle. I see and have experienced this effect time and time again, and we're getting closer and closer to the point where the protocol implementations can abstract away the messy bits. Gaining critical mass among devs is the first step!
  • Here's an idea.

    Uncategorized activitypub
    7
    0 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    25 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    benpate@mastodon.social Emissary interested? Har Har Har
  • Backfilling Conversations: Two Major Approaches

    ActivityPub activitypub fep 7888 f228 171b
    26
    0 Stimmen
    26 Beiträge
    125 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    > One weakness I have noticed in NodeBB's current federation is that posts which are in reply to a topic (e.g. a Lemmy comment) show up as individual threads until (or if) the root post of that topic shows up in the local NodeBB. No, Lemmy does not implement either strategy, they rely on 1b12 only. If NodeBB is receiving parts of a topic that don't resolve up to the root-level post that might be something we can fix. I'll try to take a look at it.
  • 0 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    170 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    Hey rimu@piefed.social thanks for responding (and sorry for the late reply!) I am not married to the Announce([Article|Note|Page]) approach, so I am definitely open to Create([Article|Note|Page]) with a back-reference. I think I went the former direction because there is a known fallback mechanism — the Announce is treated as a share/boost/repost as normal. However, sending the Create also is fine I think. However, do we need a backreference? In my limited research, it seems that Piefed, et al. picks the first Group actor and associates the post with that community. If I sent over a Create(Article) with two Group actors addressed, could Piefed associate the post with the first, and initiate a cross-post with the remaining Group actors? Secondly, is how to handle sync. 1b12 relies on communities having reciprocal followers in order for two-way synchronization to be established. On my end since I know it is cross-posted I will now send 1b12 activities to cross-posted communities, but can Piefed, et al. send 1b12 activities back as well, in the absence of followers? cc andrew_s@piefed.social nutomic@lemmy.ml melroy@kbin.melroy.org bentigorlich@gehirneimer.de
  • Blogtastisch: 2. Blogs und das Fediverse

    notizBlog activitypub blogs fediblog fediverse weblogs
    17
    1
    0 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    196 Aufrufe
    caromite@troet.cafeC
    @pfefferle Wow, danke für das super Video! Für mich ist das Fediverse noch ganz neu, hab jetzt mein Blog föderiert und mir einen Account bei Mastodon erstellt. Fühle mich noch etwas verloren, aber bin überzeugt auf dem richtigen Weg zu sein
  • 0 Stimmen
    45 Beiträge
    19 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    Paweł said in Native Push Notifications Support for NodeBB: > julian maybe it is worth to check this behavior in Browserstack? Yes, this is a good idea does browser stack have support for push notifications?