Issue asking for ActivityPub support in GitLab

Okay come on, *everyone* must want this

Thanks to @ted for filing it :)

This could make GitLab as an alternative to GitHub actually work.

I left a comment explaining why GitLab could be improved by an order of magnitude or so by having federations support

@cwebber I agree 100%.

I've suggested the same thing often. It's a nonsense for me to have a hundred of accounts to help people in separated servers and all that...

Why don't we make a fork of Gitea or something and we put ActivityPub on top of it?

That would be great for everyone.

@ekaitz_zarraga @cwebber

I think its important to make public/private distinction.

I use Github for stuff that is open (or about to be made public)

I use my gitlab for stuff I dont want to share with the world.

As an academic I am zig zagging the lines between open source and trade secret. I don't want to lose my trade secrets by accident.

I guess this issue comes up all the time in federation. Example Mastodon. I want to share some toots, but I want my usage data private.

@deeds @ekaitz_zarraga It's an important distinction! Happily ActivityPub includes support for both private and public communication. Communication is by default private with email-like addressing unless you explicitly make use of the Public addressing.

You can even make a post with no addressing via the client to server API, and a private journal is a good use case for that, though this is underdiscussed!

@cwebber @ekaitz_zarraga

I am still concerned about the user interface. How often did I have my toot privacy set to "public" when I tooted stuff I really did not want to push to public time lines.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!