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 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/44486#note_65901018
@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.
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!
@deeds @cwebber I don't really see the point of what you say.
GitHub is a privative place which has many users and that's why *we* end up using it.
There's no more reason than that they are successful. But they are unethical and they don't really respect the values that made them successful.
If we had a free software approach that let's us decide what do we share and how we would be able to say Goodbye to GitHub and create more healthy commons that respect our rights as *people*.
But thats a problem you have in separated servers too.
You can configure stuff incorrectly and make it public by accident at the moment.
Federation doesn't change that in any means, it's just a way to make a server more global but it doesn't force you to share anything.
@cwebber this is exciting; if this happens I could see myself even forgiving their crime of requiring a noscript whitelist entry just to serve static files