7 ms·

Support ActivityPub for merge requests

111 points by raider 3y ago

tedunangst 3y ago
Unclear what exactly the plan is, other than an acknowledgment that ActivityPub exists.
- 3np 3y ago
  Seems relatively clear to me after reading the "Why" and "How" sections and liked issues. They don't mention Gitea/Forgejo specifically but I assume the idea is to use compatible semantics. What are you missing?
  - tedunangst 3y ago
    The activity they plan to send for a merge request.
- WolfeReader 3y ago
  Seems pretty obvious: 1. Allow interaction between GitLab instances (instead of users needing different GitLab creds for each instance) 2. Emerging "GitLab network" grows to compete with, then replace, corporate-controlled Git hosts.
mplanchard 3y ago
Fun, but as a GitLab user I’d much rather they address missing features of their core competency (code review), like the inability to “request changes” or otherwise block a merge (https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/761 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/761, issue open 6 years), or adding the ability to both squash and merge AND use the merge train I know companies are big organizations that can do more than one thing at a time, but we were just burned again recently by the inability to block a merge, and so I’m salty
- lolinder 3y ago
  Gitea and Forgejo have this functionality [0]. I've given up on GitLab ever implementing features that are directed at regular developers any more—they've pivoted to focusing exclusively on the enterprise purchaser rather than the day-to-day engineer. [0] https://docs.gitea.com/next/usage/pull-request https://docs.gitea.com/next/usage/pull-request
  - metaphor 3y ago
    > Gitea and Forgejo have this functionality [0]. I must be missing something...how is what you linked to relevant to the feature(s) that the parent is alluding to again? Surely you're not referring to Gitea WIP marking, which sounds functionally equivalent to GitLab Draft marking[1]. [1] https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/merge_requests/drafts.html https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/merge_requests/draft...
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - lolinder 3y ago
      > If the maintainers request changes, you'll need to make those changes in your branch and push the changes to your forked repository. The PR will be updated automatically with the new changes. Look at this PR for several examples of "requested changes": https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/764 https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/764
      - metaphor 3y ago
        Thanks for clarifying. That just looks like the functional equivalent of setting GitLab unresolved MR threads as blocking[1] though. [1] https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/merge_requests/index.html#prevent-merge-unless-all-threads-are-resolved https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/merge_requests/index...
        3y ago
pyrophane 3y ago
Call me skeptical, but whenever I look at any new proposed Gitlab feature I wonder: how will this help them convert more enterprise customers to their $100/seat Ultimate plan?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
1270018080 3y ago
[flagged]
lolinder 3y ago
From the comments, Forgejo is also already working on implementing ForgeFed, an ActivityPub extension specifically designed for software forges [0]. Judging from the issue, it looks like they're well on their way [1]. I dislike even federated social media, but this is a use for federation I approve of wholeheartedly. The friction of having to create accounts on X forges (where X is the number of projects that self-host) is a huge moat for GitHub, and federation could solve that very handily and create an environment where FOSS projects can feasibly host their own code away from Microsoft's control without horribly inconveniencing everyone who wants to participate. [0] https://forgefed.org/ https://forgefed.org/ [1] https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/59 https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/59
- sshine 3y ago
  ForgeFed is the noblest attempt to decentralise git after GitHub made it popular. It is potentially more DDoS resistant and secure, since your git web front-end (e.g. Forgejo) only needs to record ping-like messages, and you can react to them in your time, separate from public interfaces.
- mdwalters 3y ago
  Is Codeberg planning on implementing this?
  - lolinder 3y ago
    Codeberg are the main maintainers of Forgejo, so I would assume so.
RheingoldRiver 3y ago
I just deleted a long comment asking why it said ActivityPub wasn't going to help with "implementing cross-instance forks" - so in case anyone is confused about the same thing: I believe they are saying, they will support cross-instance forks (that's the entire point, and why I was confused), but it won't be AP that's used to do this. AP will just be used for the comments etc.
- sshine 3y ago
  Won’t `git clone` be sufficient for forking?
  - RheingoldRiver 3y ago
    For the local copy yeah but if you want the functionality of gitlab/hub to make a MR online from a fork then you need your own fork tracking the upstream which requires the two copies of the repos, hosted on each of the instances, to know about each other. Otherwise what is the point of having two instances, you would have a gerrit-like system where this is one server and you simply checkout a branch and then make a PR from the same repo. (If you are asking, "is git clone enough to implement this" then...I think so? But the way the article was worded was confusing at first, like they didn't plan to support this at all.)
    - sshine 3y ago
      I imagine that creating a fork on your own instance, you just provide a url. UX-wise it isn’t as powerful as the one-click fork of a centralised platform, and I think we’d need a browser plug-in because of the missing implicit assumption of where to fork it.
      - RheingoldRiver 3y ago
        oh yeah which link to use has been a nightmare of a UX problem with kbin/lemmy. Like, if someone links you a Lemmy page but you want to see it on your kbin instance, you need a link here, "open in kbin.social (or whichever instance)." But same for every link on the page? I guess mastadon has better solutions for this, having existed much longer with federation, but it's definitely a downside. Maybe it's something that can be built into a browser in a more general way the way "email with" is for email links - a list of "these domains are actually federated" and "my options for opening them are" list, and you get links as needed, or popups. But there are additional issues when the post ids don't match on the different instances, so such a thing is not so simple as replacing the domain with %s in the right places.

111 points by raider 3y ago

tedunangst 3y ago

Unclear what exactly the plan is, other than an acknowledgment that ActivityPub exists.

3np 3y ago
Seems relatively clear to me after reading the "Why" and "How" sections and liked issues. They don't mention Gitea/Forgejo specifically but I assume the idea is to use compatible semantics. What are you missing?
- tedunangst 3y ago
  The activity they plan to send for a merge request.
WolfeReader 3y ago
Seems pretty obvious: 1. Allow interaction between GitLab instances (instead of users needing different GitLab creds for each instance) 2. Emerging "GitLab network" grows to compete with, then replace, corporate-controlled Git hosts.

mplanchard 3y ago

Fun, but as a GitLab user I’d much rather they address missing features of their core competency (code review), like the inability to “request changes” or otherwise block a merge (https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/761 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/761, issue open 6 years), or adding the ability to both squash and merge AND use the merge train I know companies are big organizations that can do more than one thing at a time, but we were just burned again recently by the inability to block a merge, and so I’m salty

lolinder 3y ago
Gitea and Forgejo have this functionality [0]. I've given up on GitLab ever implementing features that are directed at regular developers any more—they've pivoted to focusing exclusively on the enterprise purchaser rather than the day-to-day engineer. [0] https://docs.gitea.com/next/usage/pull-request https://docs.gitea.com/next/usage/pull-request
- metaphor 3y ago
  > Gitea and Forgejo have this functionality [0]. I must be missing something...how is what you linked to relevant to the feature(s) that the parent is alluding to again? Surely you're not referring to Gitea WIP marking, which sounds functionally equivalent to GitLab Draft marking[1]. [1] https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/merge_requests/drafts.html https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/merge_requests/draft...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - lolinder 3y ago
    > If the maintainers request changes, you'll need to make those changes in your branch and push the changes to your forked repository. The PR will be updated automatically with the new changes. Look at this PR for several examples of "requested changes": https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/764 https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/764
    - metaphor 3y ago
      Thanks for clarifying. That just looks like the functional equivalent of setting GitLab unresolved MR threads as blocking[1] though. [1] https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/merge_requests/index.html#prevent-merge-unless-all-threads-are-resolved https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/merge_requests/index...
      - 3y ago

pyrophane 3y ago

Call me skeptical, but whenever I look at any new proposed Gitlab feature I wonder: how will this help them convert more enterprise customers to their $100/seat Ultimate plan?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

1270018080 3y ago

[flagged]

lolinder 3y ago

From the comments, Forgejo is also already working on implementing ForgeFed, an ActivityPub extension specifically designed for software forges [0]. Judging from the issue, it looks like they're well on their way [1]. I dislike even federated social media, but this is a use for federation I approve of wholeheartedly. The friction of having to create accounts on X forges (where X is the number of projects that self-host) is a huge moat for GitHub, and federation could solve that very handily and create an environment where FOSS projects can feasibly host their own code away from Microsoft's control without horribly inconveniencing everyone who wants to participate. [0] https://forgefed.org/ https://forgefed.org/ [1] https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/59 https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/59

sshine 3y ago
ForgeFed is the noblest attempt to decentralise git after GitHub made it popular. It is potentially more DDoS resistant and secure, since your git web front-end (e.g. Forgejo) only needs to record ping-like messages, and you can react to them in your time, separate from public interfaces.
mdwalters 3y ago
Is Codeberg planning on implementing this?
- lolinder 3y ago
  Codeberg are the main maintainers of Forgejo, so I would assume so.

RheingoldRiver 3y ago

I just deleted a long comment asking why it said ActivityPub wasn't going to help with "implementing cross-instance forks" - so in case anyone is confused about the same thing: I believe they are saying, they will support cross-instance forks (that's the entire point, and why I was confused), but it won't be AP that's used to do this. AP will just be used for the comments etc.

sshine 3y ago
Won’t `git clone` be sufficient for forking?
- RheingoldRiver 3y ago
  For the local copy yeah but if you want the functionality of gitlab/hub to make a MR online from a fork then you need your own fork tracking the upstream which requires the two copies of the repos, hosted on each of the instances, to know about each other. Otherwise what is the point of having two instances, you would have a gerrit-like system where this is one server and you simply checkout a branch and then make a PR from the same repo. (If you are asking, "is git clone enough to implement this" then...I think so? But the way the article was worded was confusing at first, like they didn't plan to support this at all.)
  - sshine 3y ago
    I imagine that creating a fork on your own instance, you just provide a url. UX-wise it isn’t as powerful as the one-click fork of a centralised platform, and I think we’d need a browser plug-in because of the missing implicit assumption of where to fork it.
    - RheingoldRiver 3y ago
      oh yeah which link to use has been a nightmare of a UX problem with kbin/lemmy. Like, if someone links you a Lemmy page but you want to see it on your kbin instance, you need a link here, "open in kbin.social (or whichever instance)." But same for every link on the page? I guess mastadon has better solutions for this, having existed much longer with federation, but it's definitely a downside. Maybe it's something that can be built into a browser in a more general way the way "email with" is for email links - a list of "these domains are actually federated" and "my options for opening them are" list, and you get links as needed, or popups. But there are additional issues when the post ids don't match on the different instances, so such a thing is not so simple as replacing the domain with %s in the right places.