Comment on PieFed 1.4 is released - emoji, federated stackoverflow and AI content filters

• rglullis@communick.news ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  This is not a matter of “opening a PR”. The fact that they are adding features in this completely ad-hoc manner shows that they are prioritizing features for piefed over interoperability with the wider Fediverse. If my job was to go around convincing every AP developer that their approach is flawed and to fix their mistakes, I’d be doing nothing else with my life.

  What I can do though is to create a framework that makes it easy to work with JSON-LD and occasionally file bug reports

  ---

  An aside: this “feel free to open a PR” - without any justification or discussion about the merit of issue at hand - is the standard passive-aggressive response from every developer who is not interested in making the change. It’s sad to see that it’s also becoming the go-to retort for the project cheerleaders…

  source

  • Blaze@piefed.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    How is creating a new Activity type preventing compatibility with the rest of the Fediverse? Is there any other Fediverse platform that has a similar feature that Piefed could have replicated?

    When you’re the first one doing something with ActivityPub, you have to create it yourself. This is not perfect, and you raise valid points, hence my suggestion to engage on the Codeberg.

    On the other hand, for other Piefed features inspired by existing implementations such as the emoji reactions, the feature is compatible with those platforms which already supported the feature.

    Regarding your last paragraph, picking the one feature for which the implementation can be improved and saying “It’s this kind of thinig that makes me think of PieFed as just a pile of hacks with no serious consideration for the Fediverse” while it’s clearly not true seems fully aggressive.

    source

    • rglullis@communick.news ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      How is creating a new Activity type preventing compatibility with the rest of the Fediverse?

      If they chose to use any of the 3 solutions I proposed, there would be no changes on the other servers to receive and parse the message. But because it uses a different type, now those serves that want to store the information about an answer being accepted have to write code specifically to handle messages from PieFed.

      It also works in the other direction: if I want to send an “accept” activity for a comment, I could do it from my server and PieFed could easily understand it as well. But because they want to create their own ad-hoc solution, then they won’t be able to.

      When you’re the first one doing something with ActivityPub, you have to create it yourself.

      No, you don’t. The whole point of Linked Data and RDF is that nodes can send data to each other without having to agree on any new protocol

      Piefed features inspired by existing implementations such as the emoji reactions

      You are only making my point. Emojis have already a defined extension, this is why it’s easier to adopt it.

      picking the one feature

      It’s not just that. They also proposed some ad-hoc activities for moderation in the past and their “import community” works by taking posts and rewriting them as if they originated in the piefed instance. These are all signs that the devs either don’t understand or don’t care about JSON-LD as an standard.

      source

      • FundMECFS@anarchist.nexus ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        This is just my personal opinion, so feel free to disregard.

        But I feel you raise some decent points. But you‘re commenting them in such an adversarial manner that it makes it unlikely the piefed devs will take you seriously.

        source
      • Blaze@piefed.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        No more time for this today.

        Merry Christmas everyone.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Skavau@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        What ad hoc activities?

        And community migration being fully realised has massive fediverse support.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • IndustryStandard@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Because there is no real need for Piefed to create their own activity type besides it being slightly easier for their devs to do everything exactly the way they want.

      But this is very detrimental to the fediverse because it means that everyone would have to change their software to suit the needs of Piefed.

      Image

      source
  • aasatru@kbin.earth ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    "feel free to open a PR" - without any justification or discussion about the merit of issue at hand - is the standard passive-aggressive response from every developer who is not interested in making the change.

    Man, the entitlement. Especially coming from the only person I know of who is here with the explicit goal of monetizing the platform.

    There's a way of voicing concerns and criticisms in a way that is constructive, helpful, and in good faith, inviting to an open discussion with concerned parties. Yours is not that.

    source

    • rglullis@communick.news ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Believing that the we need professional hosting providers to have a sustainable Fediverse != “Monetizing the platform”.

      Besides, I’ve already voiced similar concerns through different venues. The devs made it clear they are not interested in developing pieces with a focus on standards compliance. They care about throwing as many features as possible to their system.

      It’s fine, it’s their project, they can do whatever they want. It doesn’t mean that I don’t have the right to have an opinion about it.

      source
  • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    An aside: this “feel free to open a PR” - without any justification or discussion about the merit of issue at hand - is the standard passive-aggressive response from every developer who is not interested in making the change. It’s sad to see that it’s also becoming the go-to retort for the project cheerleaders…

    That’s absolutely no true. I can’t speak for all developers of course, but as someone who is juggling multiple large FOSS project, when I give that reply, 99% of the time I would like that feature, but I don’t have the resources to do it myself.

    source

    • rglullis@communick.news ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      I’ve added the “without any justification or discussion about the merit of issue at hand” as a qualifier…

      It’s totally fine if you say “yes, this looks cool but I don’t have the time to do it”, or even “I’m not so sure about it, but if you bring a PR we can take a better look at it”.

      source

      • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Yes. I also agree the way you say it can betray the implication. If someone suggest a feature and your only reply is “PRs welcome ;)” it points to it being dismissive. However, after being in the “game” for a while so to speak, I can also understand dismissiveness as well since there’s plenty of people who do drive-by suggestions and get upset when the developer doesn’t immediately jump to implement them.

        source