1b12 vs Guppe groups
-
I recently switched the Discourse plugin back to only Announcing the first
Create(Note)in a topic (Collection), but not replies, or updates, as announcing everything was causing issues with Mastodon. -
julian:
When I refactored my 1b12 implementation, I actually removed the second
Announce(Object), but I think I will add it back.I would gently suggest that sending both
Announce(Object)andAnnounce(Create(Object))to all followers for the same content is not a good solution to the problem. Yes, other implementors can come up with ways to handle that (I just deployed the Discourse solution to this duplication to SoicalHub), but it's hardly ideal. -
julian:
When I refactored my 1b12 implementation, I actually removed the second
Announce(Object), but I think I will add it back.I would gently suggest that sending both
Announce(Object)andAnnounce(Create(Object))to all followers for the same content is not a good solution to the problem. Yes, other implementors can come up with ways to handle that (I just deployed the Discourse solution to this duplication to SoicalHub), but it's hardly ideal.@[email protected] the other side of the coin is that Mastodon simply doesn't get the replies to a conversation, which decreases the utility of following a category, no?
Rock and a hard place.
Ironically this helps my case that Mastodon should implement conversational context and backfill
-
You're not wrong. I would make a PR to mastodon, but I fear it would languish in review for years. There has to be a better solution to this though.
-
You're not wrong. I would make a PR to mastodon, but I fear it would languish in review for years. There has to be a better solution to this though.
I have updated NodeBB (
develop, so v4.1 whenever it drops) so that it conforms with 1b12 per spec:- Only activities will be
Announce'd - The plain object will be
Announce'd if the activity is of typeCreate, and it is the top level post
- Only activities will be
-
> a PR to Mastodon
@[email protected] I would hold off on that in favour of a PR to introduce
contextserving and consumption (a la 7888). There are still some issues to work through, but I intend to have it upstreamed (via @[email protected]) once we settle on a semi-final implementation. -
You're not wrong. I would make a PR to mastodon, but I fear it would languish in review for years. There has to be a better solution to this though.
I would advise not to outright open a PR to Mastodon, but reach out to us first and discuss what can be done, and what the plan for action should be.
We want to solve this problem of replies, but it has many complex impacts (how do we represent a conversation in Mastodon ? What about backward compat ? What is required on upgrading ?)
A contributor is working on improving reply fetching (https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/pull/32615) and we are making slow progress, but I guess this is orthogonal to those other
context-related RFCs.I am not an ActivityPub expert and not the best person to discuss this, but we can have a call together and see what needs to be done to improve the situation in Mastodon.
-
I would advise not to outright open a PR to Mastodon, but reach out to us first and discuss what can be done, and what the plan for action should be.
We want to solve this problem of replies, but it has many complex impacts (how do we represent a conversation in Mastodon ? What about backward compat ? What is required on upgrading ?)
A contributor is working on improving reply fetching (https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/pull/32615) and we are making slow progress, but I guess this is orthogonal to those other
context-related RFCs.I am not an ActivityPub expert and not the best person to discuss this, but we can have a call together and see what needs to be done to improve the situation in Mastodon.
Hello @renchap, thanks for following up. I think the way to tackle this is a version of the following:
- We agree on a normative approach to the use of
context. <--- Discourse, NodeBB, Wordpress and others essentially agree on this already, but it would be helpful to clarify and include folks from Mastodon. - We develop a generalised implementation agenda. Generalised, but with the needs of different platforms in mind.
- Individual implementers adapted the generalised implementation agenda to their specific circumstances. However that works with their individual development cycles / practices.
I suggest we start work on 1 and 2 now and discuss them both further in person at the next Threadiverse Working Group meeting at the start of March. The group was set up to address these questions.
@devnull @trwnh @pfefferle If you're on board with this, let's seize this rare opportunity of having the relevant players involved and finally settle this question so we can move forward. If so, could one of you please start a new topic in #activitypub:threadiverse-wg addressing where we're currently at with 1 as you're both better across this currently than I am.
cc @nutomic @silverpill
- We agree on a normative approach to the use of
-
Hello @renchap, thanks for following up. I think the way to tackle this is a version of the following:
- We agree on a normative approach to the use of
context. <--- Discourse, NodeBB, Wordpress and others essentially agree on this already, but it would be helpful to clarify and include folks from Mastodon. - We develop a generalised implementation agenda. Generalised, but with the needs of different platforms in mind.
- Individual implementers adapted the generalised implementation agenda to their specific circumstances. However that works with their individual development cycles / practices.
I suggest we start work on 1 and 2 now and discuss them both further in person at the next Threadiverse Working Group meeting at the start of March. The group was set up to address these questions.
@devnull @trwnh @pfefferle If you're on board with this, let's seize this rare opportunity of having the relevant players involved and finally settle this question so we can move forward. If so, could one of you please start a new topic in #activitypub:threadiverse-wg addressing where we're currently at with 1 as you're both better across this currently than I am.
cc @nutomic @silverpill
angus:We agree on a normative approach to the use of
context. <— Discourse, NodeBB, Wordpress and others essentially agree on this already, but it would be helpful to clarify and include folks from Mastodon.I recently published a FEP that documents different implementations of
contextcollection: https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/f228/fep-f228.mdDidn't know that Discourse also implements it. Just tested it - everything works as expected - We agree on a normative approach to the use of
-
Doesn't this mean Mastodon users et al will no longer get boost notifications when their posts are reshared into a topic? If you’re never actually resharing the post itself, this prevents cleanly tracking all
shares. -
angus:
We agree on a normative approach to the use of
context. <— Discourse, NodeBB, Wordpress and others essentially agree on this already, but it would be helpful to clarify and include folks from Mastodon.I recently published a FEP that documents different implementations of
contextcollection: https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/f228/fep-f228.mdDidn't know that Discourse also implements it. Just tested it - everything works as expectedSilverpill, thanks for sharing that it works. It's odd because it doesn't work with NodeBB (I woke up this morning missing 4 replies); pulling one should've gotten all of them but I had to pull them one by one (and one of @[email protected]'s still can't make it in).
Sounds like an issue with me, but I'll take a closer look this morning.
-
Hello @renchap, thanks for following up. I think the way to tackle this is a version of the following:
- We agree on a normative approach to the use of
context. <--- Discourse, NodeBB, Wordpress and others essentially agree on this already, but it would be helpful to clarify and include folks from Mastodon. - We develop a generalised implementation agenda. Generalised, but with the needs of different platforms in mind.
- Individual implementers adapted the generalised implementation agenda to their specific circumstances. However that works with their individual development cycles / practices.
I suggest we start work on 1 and 2 now and discuss them both further in person at the next Threadiverse Working Group meeting at the start of March. The group was set up to address these questions.
@devnull @trwnh @pfefferle If you're on board with this, let's seize this rare opportunity of having the relevant players involved and finally settle this question so we can move forward. If so, could one of you please start a new topic in #activitypub:threadiverse-wg addressing where we're currently at with 1 as you're both better across this currently than I am.
cc @nutomic @silverpill
@[email protected] will do. There has been some movement on this recently and I'd love to keep it going (and keep Mastodon in the loop).
@[email protected], not to worry, I don't plan on making a PR without running it by your team first. I know these things take discussion
I have my own thoughts on Jonny's reply collection backfill, although I will put those thoughts to paper later on.
- We agree on a normative approach to the use of
-
Silverpill, thanks for sharing that it works. It's odd because it doesn't work with NodeBB (I woke up this morning missing 4 replies); pulling one should've gotten all of them but I had to pull them one by one (and one of @[email protected]'s still can't make it in).
Sounds like an issue with me, but I'll take a closer look this morning.
julian:It's odd because it doesn't work with NodeBB (I woke up this morning missing 4 replies); pulling one should've gotten all of them but I had to pull them one by one (and one of @[email protected]'s still can't make it in).
This is likely related to the problem I described in another thread:
https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/federated-socialhub-categories/4648/33
-
Doesn't this mean Mastodon users et al will no longer get boost notifications when their posts are reshared into a topic? If you’re never actually resharing the post itself, this prevents cleanly tracking all
shares.> Doesn't this mean Mastodon users et al will no longer get boost notifications when their posts are reshared into a topic?
Correct, only OP will be shared. Unless I am mistaken this is how Lemmy implemented it.
Announce-ing activities only, and one singleAnnounce(Note)for compatibility with Mastodon.
