It's fixed now, apparently a change by our monitoring provider on their end caused this breakage, even without changing software versions on our end :(

We have disabled the affected component now.

Unfortunately this seems to be a more complicated issue and we haven't been able to identify the root cause yet. We'll probably have to raise this with our S3 provider, as I couldn't find any public resources where they'd have announced any changes on their end.

fyi @Agent_Karyo@piefed.world (not sure if you're subscribed to all comments on this)

Thanks for the report, we're currently looking into this. Since we haven't changed anything recently it's not yet clear what could be causing it. Our infra team has been busy with IRL stuff lately, resulting in somewhat delayed responses, but this should get resolved today.

Hi, I believe this is something that was recently fixed in piefed, but we haven't deployed this patch yet. I'm currently planning to deploy an update in the coming days, might take until the next weekend.

remind me when it's federated

do mentions really only work for contributors or is it more of an issue of people not being autocompleted when typing @? i noticed earlier today that autocomplete doesn't even work for people who previously contributed, like @wjs018@piefed.social. maybe it only autocompletes for people who already commented in the issue/PR?

in terms of banning, it looks like this has been implemented 2 years ago already: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/802

an option that seems to be surprisingly absent is discussion where the source lives, on codeberg. imo it's very useful to have persistent discussions close to the source.

while i still consider matrix to be the best option for chat on this list, primarily due to federation, it's mostly useful for ephemeral conversations. finding old messages in matrix is often a pain, knowledge isn't searchable (search engines won't see this at all), and even new joiners typically won't have "all" history. structure with threads is also still very limited due to there still being a fair number of clients without thread support.

having discussions in codeberg issues also makes it a lot easier simpler to find context when you e.g. look at a commit, find the associated PR, then see the linked issue with the discussion.

edit to add more info:

what i've also seen in various projects in the past is when more complex issues have been discussed in chat, that a summary and key elements of the discussion or even a copy of the conversation will be persisted to e.g. issues, to allow for easier discussion (real time communication can work a lot faster and more efficient when there is some back and forth) while also ensuring that the information isn't lost over time.

i voted for piefed + matrix, but in reality i'd prefer codeberg + matrix. with federation, codeberg + zulip would likely also be a good alternative.

private voting has already been changed to non-federated voting, so the original point is no longer relevant, but it absolutely is your problem if you want your votes to have any meaning. otherwise you could just not vote. if your instance is just telling me there are 20 accounts that vote very similar and I don't have means to verify authenticity of those accounts I'd rather ban them all and if you get caught in that then your votes don't matter anymore at all, at least as far as federation to my instance is concerned. otherwise I could just create a bunch of alts and downvote all your content, after all nobody could verify if this is coming from authentic users.

for apps i could see this being the difference between a short and a long press on the voting button

how would someone remove their vote in that case, without first making it public?

this basically boils down to requiring globally unique identifiers of users, and then still having them tied to voting, to ensure people can't just sign up on multiple instances to vote multiple times.

this isn't an issue with hard work, this is an issue with how much identifying information are you willing to collect and store, as well as requiring users to provide this. maybe you would be okay with providing your id on signup, but the majority of people won't be okay with that. this is also not data that i would want to store as a server operator, as this is a huge liability.

once you have this kind of unique identifier, and that allows you to prevent the same person from voting again, how do you imagine this could be done in a private fashion? it is just not possible. especially when considering your arguments about law enforcement requests, this would be even more transparent.

what do you mean? what are private posts?