Skip to content

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

Uncategorized
116 66 771

Diese Artikel könnten Dich auch interessieren.

  • 0 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    59 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    renchap@oisaur.com edent@mastodon.social as it should, as the followers collection can be gamed and should not be trusted.
  • Backfilling Conversations: Two Major Approaches

    ActivityPub activitypub fep 7888 f228 171b
    26
    0 Stimmen
    26 Beiträge
    97 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.
  • Fun with Federation: Lemmy edition

    ActivityPub nodebb lemmy activitypub
    5
    0 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    27 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    nutomic@lemmy.ml let me know if I got any of the details wrong. Much thanks to your team for the assist in debugging!
  • #activitypub #mastodev

    Uncategorized activitypub mastodev
    3
    1
    0 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    23 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    thisismissem@hachyderm.io oh god do I have to handle this too
  • The backlog was bigger than I expected...

    Uncategorized lemmy nodebb
    13
    0 Stimmen
    13 Beiträge
    68 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    Depends on the project, and I imagine a lot of the smaller ones are your standard FOSS BDFL leadership. In my case I'll likely make a rough milestone list based off our NLNet memorandum and go from there.
  • 0 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    149 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
    83 Aufrufe
    FrankMF
    Uups, next try https://nrw.social/deck/@FrankM/113606591981853331
  • 0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    77 Aufrufe
    FrankMF
    Kommt echt an Ich bin verblüfft LOL