Skip to content

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

Uncategorized
116 66 777

Diese Artikel könnten Dich auch interessieren.

  • 0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    jsit@social.coop Ghost? NodeBB? Just to name a couple
  • 0 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    box464@mastodon.social we're thrilled to have been funded for another round! There's a lot we want to accomplish and we'll be working on our milestone list in the coming weeks. Context discovery is just one exciting thing we have planned!
  • APx is finally available on crates.io / docs.rs

    Uncategorized activitypub rust apx
    2
    0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    silverpill@mitra.social nice job! Congratulations on the release now you must maintain it for free forever.
  • #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
    70 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
    9 Beiträge
    64 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    I suppose you're right in a way. The context owner is not supposed to be set by someone other than the context owner. It's a fallback mechanism intended for better compatibility with Mastodon. When a group is addressed and it is one of the local NodeBB categories, it will assume control If it is another group that it knows about but isn't same origin to the author, then no category is assumed.
  • 0 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    150 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
  • ActivityPub for forums looks neat!

    Uncategorized activitypub federation discourse fediverse
    2
    0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    55 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    NodeBB is gearing up for a major release this month that brings full two way federation and content discoverability to forums as well! We've been working on it all last year! @activitypub