Conflicts:
- `package.json`:
Upstream updated a dependency that is on an adjacent line to a
glitch-soc-only dependency in that file.
Updated as upstream did.
- `yarn.lock`:
Upstream updated a dependency that is on an adjacent line to a
glitch-soc-only dependency in that file.
Updated as upstream did.
Conflicts:
- `package.json`:
Conflict due to lines adjacent to the glitch-soc-modified `i18n:extract` one
were changed, but otherwise no real conflict.
Ported upstream's changes and kept glitch-soc's `i18n:extract`.
- `tsconfig.json`:
Upstream's dependencies changed the code style rules for json formatting, and
we had local changes.
Kept our changes, but with upstream's formatting/
- `yarn.lock`:
A dependency textually adjacent to a glitch-soc-only one got changed.
Applied upstream's change, keeping the glitch-soc-only dependency.
Conflicts:
- `app/controllers/application_controller.rb`:
Not a real conflict, upstream fixed a bug in a line adjacent to code
modified by glitch-soc.
Ported upstream's change.
Conflicts:
- `Gemfile.lock`:
Changes were already cherry-picked and updated further in glitch-soc.
Kept glitch-soc's version.
- `README.md`:
Upstream updated its README, we have a completely different one.
Kept glitch-soc's README.
- `app/models/account.rb`:
Not a real conflict, upstream updated some lines textually adjacent
to glitch-soc-specific lines.
Ported upstream's changes.
Conflicts:
- `.github/workflows/build-security.yml`:
Changes were already cherry-picked and adapted in glitch-soc.
Kept glitch-soc's version.
- `Gemfile.lock`:
Changes were already cherry-picked and updated further in glitch-soc.
Kept glitch-soc's version.
- `lib/mastodon/version.rb`:
Changes were already cherry-picked and updated further in glitch-soc.
Kept glitch-soc's version.
glitch-soc does not have releases, so it tags nightly container builds as latest; but we were not doing the same thing for the new `mastodon-streaming` container
Conflicts:
- `app/models/form/admin_settings.rb`:
Upstream changed code style change, including on a line modified by glitch-soc.
Kept glitch-soc's line but with the code style change applied.
Conflicts:
- `Gemfile.lock`:
Conflict caused by the `json` gem thing once again.
Updated as upstream did, but keeping the most recent `json` version.
- `spec/helpers/application_helper_spec.rb`:
Upstream refactored a bunch of specs, including one place that differs
because of glitch-soc's theming system.
Refactored as upstream did, adapting it for glitch-soc's theming system.
Conflicts:
- `config/initializers/content_security_policy.rb`:
Upstream reworked the CSP, we kept our version for now.
- `spec/requests/content_security_policy_spec.rb`:
Upstream reworked the CSP, we kept our version for now.
Conflicts:
- `app/views/admin/custom_emojis/new.html.haml`:
Conflict caused by glitch-soc having a different file size limit constant
name.
Updated like upstream did while keeping glitch-soc's constant name.
Conflicts:
- `app/validators/status_pin_validator.rb`:
Upstream refactored that file, while glitch-soc had configurable limits for
pinned statuses.
Updated the code with upstream's refactor, while keeping glitch-soc's
configurability.
Conflicts:
- `package.json`:
Upstream split some dependencies, including `express`, to
`streaming/package.json`.
However, glitch-soc had extra dependencies textually close to `express`.
Kept the extra dependencies and moved `express` to streaming.
- `yarn.lock`:
Upstream split some dependencies, including `express`, to
`streaming/package.json`.
However, glitch-soc had extra dependencies textually close to `express`.
Kept the extra dependencies and moved `express` to streaming.
Conflicts:
- `README.md`:
Upstream updated its README, we have a completely different one.
Kept ours.
- `yarn.lock`:
Upstream changed from yarn 1 to yarn 4, but we had some different
dependencies.
Updated to yarn 4 and re-added our dependencies.
Conflicts:
- `package.json`:
Upstream removed a dependency textually close to a glitch-only dependency.
Updated as upstream while keeping our dependency.
Conflicts:
- `README.md`:
Upstream has updated its README, we have a completely different one.
Kept ours.
- `app/views/auth/sessions/two_factor.html.haml`:
Upstream refactored stuff and the conflict is because of glitch-soc's theming
system.
Ported upstream changes while accounting for the different theming system.
Conflicts:
- `.github/workflows/build-nightly.yml`:
Upstream modified this file close to a line modified by glitch-soc to
disable the ARMv64 builder (as glitch-soc doesn't have one).
Ported upstream's changes.
- `.github/workflows/build-releases.yml`:
Upstream modified this file close to lines changed by glitch-soc to
change the Docker image repositories used (only ghcr, and based on the
organization's name).
Ported upstream's changes.
Conflicts:
- `config/initializers/content_security_policy.rb`:
Upstream added some code to add the Identity Provider's sign-in endpoint to
the `form-action` Content Security Policy directive but our version of the
file is pretty different.
Ported the change.
Conflicts:
- `.github/workflows/build-releases.yml`:
Upstream changed comments close to a line we modified to account for
different container image repositories.
Updated the comments as upstream did.
Conflicts:
- `.github/workflows/build-nightly.yml`:
Upstream changed the environment variables used for defining the version
number. This change occurs close to lines that were modified in glitch-soc
to account for the different repositories to push to.
Ported upstream changes.
- `.github/workflows/build-push-pr.yml`:
Upstream changed the environment variables used for defining the version
number. This change occurs close to lines that were modified in glitch-soc
to account for the different repositories to push to.
Ported upstream changes.
- `lib/mastodon/version.rb`:
Upstream changed how the version string is built from environment variables.
Adapted the logic to account for the `+glitch` in glitch-soc.
Matt Jankowski