I think it’s not really on your side, most likely either just something wrong on kbin.social itself, OR a side-effect of the measures lemmy.world implemented against kbin.social recently.

They are basically local-only communities on lemmy.world at this point, unfortunately. There is no federation to any other instance for any lemmy.world user posts on those communities.

I think there are two separate things I want to address here:

First, agile isn’t a project management methodology, it’s just a set of 4 abstract priorities and 12 abstract principles. It’s very short, you can check it out here:

https://agilemanifesto.org/

Nothing here says that you’re not allowed to write documentations, requirements, etc. In fact, the principles encourage you as a software team to create the structures and documentation that you need in order to meet your goals.

Secondly, in terms of practical advice:

1. Talk about this problem with your team. Is it hard for others to figure out where requirements came from? Maybe they already have a good method and can share it with you. If it’s hard for everybody, then propose improvements to your process, for example, propose some type of design document process as part of building any new features
2. There are no perfect answers to the question of “how do I safely make non-trivial changes to systems”, but the general approach is to ensure that:

a. You have metrics about how your system is used.

b. You have automated tests covering any requirements, so that you can feel confident when making changes to one part of the system that it isn’t violating any unrelated requirements.

c. You actually document any confusing parts in the code itself uing code comments. The most important thing to cover in comments is “why is this logic necessary?” - whenever something is confusing, you need to answer this question with a comment. Otherwise, the system becomes very annoying to change later on.

If you are missing any of the above, then propose to your team that you start doing it ASAP

3. At the end of the day, somebody is responsible for making product decisions. Is it your team? Or maybe some separate product owner? Sometimes, you just need to communicate with whoever is responsible to figure out if any requirements are still relevant, or if they are now safe to change.

It’s not really a bug, it’s just a case where app developers need to update their code to support a small change in the Lemmy API. More details here: https://lemm.ee/post/34259050/12479585

Regarding your question:

Lemmy federation basically works by copying stuff from their source instance to all other federated instances. So if I write a comment on lemm.ee, other federated instances will get their own copy of my comment. They will also all know that the “authority” for this comment is lemm.ee.

If an admin on another instance decides to delete their local copy of my comment on lemm.ee, then they are always free to do so (for example, some instances might want to moderate more strictly), but any actions they take like this are limited to their own instance - for the rest of Lemmy, lemm.ee remains the authority for this comment, so individual remote instance admins taking actions won’t have any effect on any other instances.

As for the original topic of modlog federation, basically it just boils down to this: just like with the comment example above, Lemmy instances also save a local copy of incoming federated mod logs. The Lemmy software does not yet have 100% coverage in terms of federating mod logs (for example, there are no federated logs yet for instance admins banning remote users), but this coverage has been increasing, and I expect this will eventually get to 100% (just needs more dev time really).

Also, if some instance admins try to tamper with their mod logs, then other instances can still see the real history, because there is no way for an instance admin to delete copies of their mod log from other instances.

Banning a local user from a local community does actually federate already

Most actions federate, any exceptions which aren’t federated yet are generally just there because the federation logic has not been implemented (but improvements are constantly being worked on).

Generally federating the modlog is mostly just there for informative purposes. As in, we can check what mod actions were taken on instance A through the modlog on instance B (and there is no mechanism in Lemmy for other instances to retroactively remove or hide federated modlog items, btw).

It’s the first option in the dropdown:

Big thanks to all maintainers and contributors!

Hey! Do I understand correctly that your app is trying to fetch any /post/<id> directly from its source instance API? If so, I have a few ideas:

1. If you detect anything that looks like a Lemmy post URL (<host>/post/<id>), you could first try to make a request to <host>/version, and only treat the post as a Lemmy post if you get a JSON response from that endpoint where .software.name === 'lemmy'. Otherwise, open that URL in the browser.

2. The above will already “fix” the issue, but custom frontends on subdomains is actually quite common, so if you want to handle those links without resorting to a browser, then: in cases where <host>/version is not a Lemmy response, but <host> includes a subdomain, you could repeat the same logic from step 1 for the parent domain as well. If you detect a Lemmy API at the parent domain, then just use that to fetch the post.

The sad fact is that some people keep constantly spreading false rumors about Lemmy devs not working on mod tools. Anybody can just take a few minutes and go through the past Lemmy updates in this community to see that moderation improvements are basically worked on constantly (and this is not some recent change either). But there are plenty of users who never bother to actually check this, and so the rumors keep spreading.

Obviously being instance-banned won’t prevent you from commenting on their posts, it just won’t get federated to that instance

I am actually working on fixing this right now, so that in the future, users would be prevented from commenting in this situation

Awesome work!

Do you have an idea yet for the timeline of the 0.19.4 release?

I think nearly all big Lemmy instances have in fact defederated, you can check this list: https://fedipact.veganism.social (filter by software: Lemmy)

Just a hunch, but is it possible you missed the --recursive flag when cloning the repo?

This “ads as posts” thing was one of my two biggest concerns with Threads federation. I really hoped I would turn out to be wrong about it, but at the end of the day, both Facebook itself, as well as big social media influencers, rely on advertising for their profits. For anybody looking to avoid ads on Lemmy, it seems like direct federation with Threads is not a good idea currently. On lemm.ee, “no advertising” has been one of our 4 core instance rules from the start.

My other major concern was Threads having the ability to enforce their feed algorithms on federated instances through sheer number of votes on things they show in their feeds, but judging by what you’re saying about the engagement, at least that concern has not materialized (at least yet).

I think community discovery can (and should) be improved for sure!

Currently it’s true that you can use topic-centered instances for this, I do this myself as well, but I do think it has quite significant downsides in terms of creating pockets of centralization. For example, if you’re a user who is ONLY interested in french cinema (or any specific topic) on Lemmy, and all of the related communities and other invested users are on a single instance, then for you, the experience is absolutely no different from any centralized platform - the french cinema instance admins have 100% control over your Lemmy experience.

IMO, in practical terms, 3 key things should imapct instance choice:

1. Basic instance rules (including things like community creation policy, nsfw allowed, etc)
2. Federation policy
3. Instance infrastructure (hardware & how it’s managed)

Content specialization really shouldn’t matter IMO, because as long as the federation policy is OK for you, then you can participate in any communities, regardless of what instance they are on. In other words, even if you’re super interested in french cinema, there is no need to centralize all users interested in this topic on a single instance, rather, thanks to federation, users from all instances (accounting for federation policy) should be able to become fully fledged participants in any french cinema communities.

Of the points I listed above, #1 and #2 are easier to include in an instance introduction, I’m not sure how to properly and reliably reflect #3 in any kind of overview. At the end of the day, I think most users tend to figure out what their long-term instance is a while after they first join, and quite often, it’s not their original instance, so maybe it’s not that important to emphasize the initial instance choice too much?

If I have several backends that more or less depend on each other anyway (for example: Lemmy + pict-rs), then I will create separate databases for them within a single postgres - reason being, if something bad happens to the database for one of them, then it affects the other one as well anyway, so there isn’t much to gain from isolating the databases.

Conversely, for completely unrelated services, I will always set up separate postgres instances, for full isolation.

Interesting project! Can you explain the vision a bit more - I understand that every instance can have their own version of an article, but how would a user know which version of an article is most relevant to them to read (and maybe even contribute to)?