Conflicts:
- .github/workflows/build-image.yml
We don't use GitHub Actions for building Docker images.
- Gemfile.lock
Versions were upgraded upstream that conflicted with our changes, simply applied upstream changes.
Conflicts:
- `README.md`:
Upstream changed their README, we have our own.
Kept ours.
- `app/helpers/application_helper.rb`:
Minor code style fix upstream, on a line that is different in glitch-soc
due to the different theming system.
Applied the code style fix to our own code.
- `app/views/settings/preferences/appearance/show.html.haml`:
Code style fix on a line next to lines exclusive to glitch-soc.
Applied upstream changes.
- `yarn.lock`:
Upstream updated a dependency textually close to a glitch-soc-only
dependency.
Updated the dependency like upstream did.
Conflicts:
- `README.md`:
Upstream README has been changed, but we have a completely different one.
Kept our `README.md`.
- `lib/sanitize_ext/sanitize_config.rb`:
Upstream added support for more incoming HTML tags (a large subset of what
glitch-soc accepts).
Change the code style to match upstream's but otherwise do not change our
code.
- `spec/lib/sanitize_config_spec.rb`:
Upstream added support for more incoming HTML tags (a large subset of what
glitch-soc accepts).
Kept our version, since the tests are mostly glitch-soc's, except for cases
which are purposefuly different.
Conflicts:
- `.prettierignore`:
Upstream added a line at the end of the file, while glitch-soc had its own
extra lines.
Took upstream's change.
- `CONTRIBUTING.md`:
We have our custom CONTRIBUTING.md quoting upstream. Upstream made changes.
Ported upstream changes.
- `app/controllers/application_controller.rb`:
Upstream made code style changes in a method that is entirely replaced
in glitch-soc.
Ignored the change.
- `app/models/account.rb`:
Code style changes textually close to glitch-soc-specific changes.
Ported upstream changes.
- `lib/sanitize_ext/sanitize_config.rb`:
Upstream code style changes.
Ignored them.
Conflicts:
- `.github/dependabot.yml`:
Upstream made changes while we have dropped this file.
Keep the file deleted.
- `.prettierignore`:
Upstream made changes at the end of the file, where we
had our extra lines.
Just moved our extra lines back at the end.
- `app/serializers/initial_state_serializer.rb`:
Upstream code style changes.
Applied them.
- `app/services/backup_service.rb`:
Upstream code style changes.
Applied them.
Conflicts:
- `README.md`:
Minor upstream change, our README is completely different.
Kept ours.
- `lib/tasks/assets.rake`:
glitch-soc has extra code to deal with its theming system,
upstream changed a line that exists in glitch-soc.
Applied upstream changes.
Conflicts:
- `.github/workflows/build-image.yml`:
Upstream updated `docker/build-push-action`, and we a different config
for `docker/metadata-action` so the lines directly above were different,
but it's not a real conflict.
Upgraded `docker/build-push-action` as upstream did.
- `app/javascript/mastodon/features/compose/components/compose_form.js`:
Upstream changed the codestyle near a line we had modified to accommodate
configurable character count.
Kept our change.
Conflicts:
- `config/i18n-tasks.yml`:
Upstream added new ignored strings, glitch-soc has extra ignored strings
because of the theming system.
Added upstream's changes.
Conflicts:
- `README.md`:
Upstream updated its README, while we have a completely different one.
Kept our README.
- `app/controllers/concerns/web_app_controller_concern.rb`:
Conflict because of glitch-soc's theming system.
Additionally, glitch-soc has different behavior regarding moved accounts.
Ported some of the changes, but kept our overall behavior.
- `app/javascript/packs/admin.js`:
Code changes actually applied to `app/javascript/core/admin.js`
Conflicts:
- `README.md`:
Discarded upstream changes: we have our own README
- `app/controllers/follower_accounts_controller.rb`:
Port upstream's minor refactoring
Akkoma and possibly others expect the `tag` field
in an EmojiReact activity to be an array, not just
a single object, so it's being wrapped into one
now. I'm not entirely sure whether this is the
idiomatic way of doing it tbh, but it works fine.
Using an emoji map was completely unnecessary in
the first place, because the reaction list from
the API response includes URLs for every custom
emoji anyway. The reaction list now also contains
a boolean field indicating whether it is an
external custom emoji, which is required because
people should only be able to react with Unicode
emojis and local custom ones, not with custom
emojis from other servers.
Reactions will be backported to the vanilla
flavour, which requires all related settings to
be accessible from the vanilla settings page
rather than the glitch specific settings modal.
