Support ActivityPub for merge requests

#1

Post by raider » Fri, Aug 25, 2023, 10:57 PM UTC

Support ActivityPub for merge requests
gitlab.com

Re: Support ActivityPub for merge requests

#2

Post by tedunangst » Fri, Aug 25, 2023, 11:44 PM UTC

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

Re: Support ActivityPub for merge requests

#3

Post by mplanchard » Fri, Aug 25, 2023, 11:47 PM UTC

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, 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

Re: Support ActivityPub for merge requests

#4

Post by 3np » Fri, Aug 25, 2023, 11:49 PM UTC

tedunangst wrote: post #2

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

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?

Re: Support ActivityPub for merge requests

#5

Post by pyrophane » Fri, Aug 25, 2023, 11:51 PM UTC

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?

Re: Support ActivityPub for merge requests

#6

Post by WolfeReader » Fri, Aug 25, 2023, 11:52 PM UTC

tedunangst wrote: post #2

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

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.

Re: Support ActivityPub for merge requests

#7

Post by 1270018080 » Fri, Aug 25, 2023, 11:57 PM UTC

[flagged]

Re: Support ActivityPub for merge requests

#8

Post by lolinder » Fri, Aug 25, 2023, 11:58 PM UTC

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/

[1] https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/59

Re: Support ActivityPub for merge requests

#9

Post by RheingoldRiver » Fri, Aug 25, 2023, 11:58 PM UTC

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.

Re: Support ActivityPub for merge requests

#10

Post by tedunangst » Sat, Aug 26, 2023, 12:03 AM UTC

3np wrote: post #4

tedunangst wrote: post #2

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

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?

The activity they plan to send for a merge request.