cross-posted from: https://piefed.social/c/piefed_meta@piefed.social/p/2603915/piefed-v1-9-is-released-shared-blocklists-auto-bans-and-totp

New features

  • Shared blocklists - these are like feeds except instead of listing communities to join it lists people to block. To to Account -> Blocklists to find this feature. Changes by the blocklist author effect all the people who subscribe to the list, causing them to block the list members. They federate, so you can subscribe to blocklists on other instances.
  • Edit comments inline, without loading a separate page - wjs018
  • Fediverse statistics at https://piefed.social/statistics
  • 2-factor authentication (TOTP) - can be added to your account in the ‘Security’ page in your settings.

For admins

  • Auto-ban based on the bans that instances you choose, with keyword matching on the ban reason. Go to /admin/users/auto_ban. Try putting ‘piefed.social’ in as the instance and ‘spam’ as the keyword filter. It’ll cut down on the work involved in running your instance SO much.
  • Voting pattern graph on user profiles to help spot automated voting.
  • Reset the password of any user.
  • Lots of inauthentic behaviour reports for finding bots and serial downvoters, see /admin/votes and PM me for an instructional video. It’s a lot to take in but the video will explain it all.

API

  • edit matrix user id when saving user profile data.
  • scheduled post endpoints - wjs018

Plus a lot more bits and pieces, browse the list of recent releases in the 1.8.x line at https://codeberg.org/rimu/pyfedi/releases for details.


To upgrade from 1.8.x or earlier

git pull  
git checkout v1.9.x  

Then,

./deploy.sh or ./deploy-docker2.sh


Donations

PieFed is free and open-source software while operating without any advertising, monetization, or reliance on venture capital. Your donations are vital in supporting the PieFed development effort, allowing us to expand and enhance PieFed with new features.

Donations can be made via Patreon, Liberapay or Ko-fi.

  • CobraCommander@quokk.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    21 hours ago

    The fork split off 7 months ago, PyLova independently added these features weeks and months before PieFed ever did.

    And it has now been confirmed that Rimu has made it non-compatible.

    • mesa@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      I’ll take a look later. It should have a tiny bit my code in there.

    • Sir. Haxalot@nord.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Maybe it’s because the PyLova maintainers refuse to let their code be contributed back, loosing their shit and accusing Rimu of stealing instead of contributing their code back.

      • moth@anarchist.nexus
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 hours ago

        the PyLova maintainers refuse to let their code be contributed back

        as soon as the fork was made, were the PyLova devs not banned from all Piefed channels? was the first security patch authored by the PyLova devs not ignored by @rimu@piefed.social, despite attempts to reach out so that Piefed could take advantage? tell moth, how long should the PyLova devs continue reaching out, only to have Rimu push them away? why do you have this double-standard?

      • CobraCommander@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Rimu is welcome to bring over PyLova code, he only needs to attribute it instead of deliberately removing the author from the work as he did last time and has been well documented in his conversation with others admitting trying to do.

        • Sir. Haxalot@nord.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          14 hours ago

          Did he really though? For the main code including the patch file should have preserved the author for the commit, right? As is shown in the blog post. Honestly that is enough to meet the license requirements. I guess you could argue that he skipped it for the themes, but really? Do you still think that warrants the narrative that they’re stealing code? (Which is a fucking rich statement for a fork to accuse the source project of anyway)

          It would also have been nice to shoutout in the release notes as well, but we never got to see that because of the drama.

          • CobraCommander@quokk.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            14 hours ago

            image

            He exported the code as a patch, while not knowing it would make her (correctly) the author. His intention very clearly looks to be as if to use her code without bringing over the authorship. And he did do exactly that later on with copying the themes and renaming it.

            So yes I believe that warrants calling out at the time he did steal the code.

            I am not saying he stole the code here, I am simply saying he is jacking the new features being introduced in an effort to harm PyLova by making it not be able to stand out with unique features. These are really the only big new user facing features he is adding and it’s conveniently shortly after we do.