Skip to content

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

Uncategorized
116 66 777

Diese Artikel könnten Dich auch interessieren.

  • 0 Stimmen
    26 Beiträge
    50 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    trwnh@mastodon.social but as:Public is not a dereferenceable URL. Needs to be special cased anyway. End of the day nothing changes, it needs special handling for all the cases anyway. cc silverpill@mitra.social
  • 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!
  • 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.
  • Unicode in handles

    ActivityPub unicode activitypub
    15
    0 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    123 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    לאצי the usernames work fine locally (that is, on the site itself). It's when interoperating with other sites not running NodeBB where there are issues, it seems
  • 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
  • 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
    43 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    bh4-tech that's good to know, thank you!