Conflicts:
- `config/settings.yml`:
Not a real conflict, upstream removed settings that are identical in glitch-soc
but textually adjacent to glitch-soc-only settings.
Removed what upstream removed.
Conflicts:
- `app/models/trends/statuses.rb`:
Conflict because of glitch-soc's setting to allow CWs in trends.
Kept glitch-soc's setting but followed upstream's refactor.
- `docker-compose.yml`:
Conflict because of upstream VS glitch-soc repos.
Updated version number as upstream did, but kept glitch-soc repos.
Conflicts:
- `tsconfig.json`:
glitch-soc had extra paths under `app/javascript/flavours`, but upstream
added `app/javascript` as a whole, so updated to upstream's.
Conflicts:
- `spec/models/concerns/account/interactions_spec.rb`:
Conflict due to glitch-soc having modified specs ages ago.
The covered code is the same as upstream, though.
Took upstream's version of the specs.
- `spec/models/status_spec.rb`:
Conflict because glitch-soc tests for an extra glitch-soc-specific
method.
Added upstream's changes while keeping the glitch-soc method.
Conflicts:
- `app/models/user_settings.rb`:
Not a real conflict, upstream added a setting on a line adjacent to a
glitch-soc-only line.
Added upstream's new setting.
Conflicts:
- `.github/workflows/build-nightly.yml`:
We had modified the file to disable the custom ARM64 builder.
Upstream has removed it, using github's runners.
Took upstream's changes.
- `.github/workflows/build-push-pr.yml`:
We had modified the file to disable the custom ARM64 builder.
Upstream has removed it, using github's runners.
Took upstream's changes.
- `.github/workflows/build-releases.yml`:
We had modified the file to disable the custom ARM64 builder.
Upstream has removed it, using github's runners.
Took upstream's changes.
- `.github/workflows/build-security.yml`:
We had modified the file to disable the custom ARM64 builder.
Upstream has removed it, using github's runners.
Took upstream's changes.
Conflicts:
- `spec/system/settings/preferences/appearance_spec.rb`:
Upstream tests for changing themes in there, but glitch-soc has
its own place for that.
Updated upstream's change while skipping the theme test.
Conflicts:
- `app/models/concerns/user/has_settings.rb`:
Not a real conflict, upstream added a setting textually close to a glitch-soc one.
Added upstream's new setting.
- `app/views/settings/preferences/appearance/show.html.haml`:
Not a real conflict, upstream added a setting textually close to a glitch-soc one.
Added upstream's new setting.
- `config/routes.rb`:
Upstream moved web app routes to `config/routes/web_app.rb`, while glitch-soc had
an extra route.
Moved the extra route to `config/routes/web_app.rb`.
- `spec/controllers/settings/preferences/appearance_controller_spec.rb`:
This spec got converted to a system spec upstream.
However, the theme setting works differently in glitch-soc, so the spec had been
changed.
Changed the corresponding system spec as well.
Conflicts:
- `app/models/trends/statuses.rb`:
Upstream added a date restriction to trendable posts, while glitch-soc had
slightly different conditions.
Added the date restriction to glitch-soc's conditions.
