#Mastodon 3.5 is out! 🐘 🎉
@Mastodon Looking forward to post editing!
I realize the importance of giving instances time to upgrade to the new version that supports editing. Do you have a rough idea how long the wait will be - e.g. 3 months, 6 months, or a year?
@xipher Before 3.5.0, it looks like post edits/updates might have just been ignored based on https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/blob/bcf85b5208c936486550da0ce978098840218073/app/lib/activitypub/activity/update.rb versus the current situation with https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/blob/v3.5.0/app/lib/activitypub/activity/update.rb …
I'd have to ask someone more familiar with the ActivityPub protocol to confirm - @Gargron ?
(The new release records edit history and notifies anyone who has already boosted, not just updating the toot contents, so it was more work than just updating a record.)
@xipher Yep, your edits show up, as does your edit history and your original message - see my attached screenshot.
@xipher I do appreciate having the full edit history neatly tucked away, but accessible in case someone changes the meaning of a message. And "Delete & redraft" remains as an option if someone wants to remove that.
(It also shows up on my mobile client, that just doesn't yet show the message history.)
@Mastodon as a note the https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/releases page says the Ruby versions is "2.5 up to 3.1" in the dependencies list, but the actual git checkout (.ruby-version) and install instructions below specify Ruby 3.0.3 instead. I assume the first is a typo, but who knows it could be the second :)
@morix I guess, 3.1 is the highest supported version and 3.0.3 is the recommended version. Many admins might prefer an older, more tested and proven to be stable release.
The Dockerfile specifies Ruby 3.0.3, too.
Got any estimate on when editing will actually be turned on? Upgrading is a big pain in the ass and none of the other changes feel worth the hassle for my small invite-only instance.
@Mastodon is this a seamless upgrade for those of us deployed in docker using 3.2? We can just change the version? Or are there individual migrations we need to do along the way?
@Mastodon @Gargron I'm a bit confused about the explore tab. For trends it's possible to auto-approve them, so you don't need to manually do this. Because that costs a lot of time. It would be great if users can report trends, so moderators can act on that.
But posts (and news I presume, but I don't see any news posts yet) you need to manually approve. This can be very labour intensive. I don't think you can expect from moderators (mostly volunteers) to check every few hours if there are new posts. I think an auto-approve setting is very needed here. If the posts are problematic, users can report them. Right now it's to time consuming for us moderators. Actually I just approve them all, cause I don't have the time to individually check them.
The alternative would be to disable the explore tab all together using css.
@Gargron @Mastodon It's still a hell of a job to find out if a user is legit. A lot of servers doesn't have this capacity. I really think it would be good to have an an auto-approve options for the posts. On smaller good moderated servers those posts are already usable. Also an option to report trends is a good idea in my opinion. Another idea is to let users vote posts and trends down (with a threshold to remove them completely). This will make it even more a community process.
@joenepraat @Gargron @Mastodon As soon as you get into stuff like users voting on trends, then things could get quite unpleasant with brigading, pump-and-dump, and such. Personally, I think voting up and down in a social media context is a failed paradigm, because it's always gamed. As you say it's hard to validate users, but even if all users are valid, legit users can still be paid for influence.
@bob Yes you are right. That is not a good idea. Just making users able to report trend would be the best option, so mods can decide. Damn, even Twitter has that option.
@Gargron OK, publishers I understand, but authors is like approving all Mastodon users individually. Better to add something like trusted domains.
> Coincidentally, the order of media attachments in a post is no longer dependent on the order in which they were uploaded
meaning that we can order the media attachments?
The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit