Skip to content

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

Uncategorized
116 66 1.4k

Diese Artikel könnten Dich auch interessieren.

  • 0 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    abraham@indieweb.social and they say ActivityPub is too technical ...
  • Long-form articles

    Uncategorized activitypub
    21
    0 Stimmen
    21 Beiträge
    39 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    feb@loma.ml well the great thing is the FEP is still a draft and your opinions are welcome cc jupiter_rowland@hub.netzgemeinde.eu silverpill@mitra.social
  • 0 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    7 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    silverpill@mitra.social there was! I am very bad with putting together minutes but I will put some together tomorrow (hopefully) For cross posting essentially I outlined how Piefed does it, and how NodeBB hopes to do it differently, but there are some moderation concerns. Will elaborate more in the minutes.
  • Backfilling Conversations: Two Major Approaches

    ActivityPub activitypub fep 7888 f228 171b
    26
    0 Stimmen
    26 Beiträge
    164 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
    55 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!
  • 0 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    116 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
    194 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
  • 0 Stimmen
    50 Beiträge
    135 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    D1re_W0lf does it work if you add the app to the home screen?