Skip to content

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

Uncategorized
116 66 1.4k

Diese Artikel könnten Dich auch interessieren.

  • New: SocialHub and the Substrate of Decentralised Networks

    Uncategorized fediverse activitypub
    7
    0 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    torsi@torsi.ca fwiw I believe melroy@kbin.melroy.org (or melroy@mastodon.melroy.org on Mastodon) is present so they're not completely absent from the fediverse
  • 0 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    abraham@indieweb.social and they say ActivityPub is too technical ...
  • From: blenderdumbass .

    Uncategorized activitypub fediverse mastodon bdserver python
    2
    0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    blenderdumbass@mastodon.online why does this article keep showing up with a newer timestamp?
  • Final thoughts re: FediCon 2025

    ActivityPub fedicon fedicon2025 activitypub
    17
    0 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    63 Aufrufe
    jdp23@neuromatch.socialJ
    @julian Also, speaking of fixable deficiencies, my edits here don't seem to propagate to SocialHub . Without knowing the code I'm confident it's fixable because my edits did propagate to the NodeBB thread at https://community.nodebb.org/topic/18932/final-thoughts-re-fedicon-2025/14 , great to see!
  • Backfilling Conversations: Two Major Approaches

    ActivityPub activitypub fep 7888 f228 171b
    26
    0 Stimmen
    26 Beiträge
    171 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
    204 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
  • Test Post for @julian

    Uncategorized activitypub
    3
    0 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    116 Aufrufe
    FrankMF
    Uups, next try https://nrw.social/deck/@FrankM/113606591981853331
  • 0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    106 Aufrufe
    FrankMF
    Kommt echt an Ich bin verblüfft LOL