If you wanna leave some kinda general feedback on 1.6, here is the Discourse thread: https://discourse.joinmastodon.org/t/mastodon-v1-6-0rc1/544
Bug reports go on GitHub of course.
Usually there's about a week's time between first RC and final release.
Since apparently nobody reads what I write, I'll reiterate some points about the protocol stuff, as I see wrong information being spread around.
ActivityPub is a new W3C standard for federated messaging with better privacy support and more future-proofness.
v1.6 of Mastodon implements ActivityPub for the first time, and "prefers" this protocol when it's available. However there is no change at all to how OStatus works in it.
v2.0 will pull the switch on private toot federation over OStatus.
There is a long-term plan of removing OStatus support, as Mastodon has never been intended to be multi-protocol. This plan is not connected to any specific version or date. It's just a general direction. As most of the fediverse plans to switch to/support ActivityPub (e.g. Hubzilla, GNU social), I believe nobody's gonna miss OStatus.
read it. Ha!
@Gargron guessing by pull the switch you mean turn off private toot federation if it's using OStatus?
@Gargron coolbeans 
@vinzv There's a third post after the one you replied to
with respect
> wrong information being spread around
some of that's happening because there are people intentionally misunderstanding to cause problems
I think you're being pretty clear overall -- but some people are going to do this, for reasons I consider quite malicious but will not name here
:( <3
@Gargron Do you know of any developer who is currently working on AP for GNU Social?
I will have a look at the AP implementation at Mastodon and I'm curious about the way you want to solve the "incomplete thread"-problem that still can occur with AP, since they couldn't agree on doing the distribution like other networks are practicing it for years.
@heluecht There's a graphic spread by Mike from Hubzilla where GNU social and Pleroma has an "f" (plans to implement in the future) under the ActivityPub column. Lambda supposedly has "Pleroma talking ActivityPub internally already"
Also this is most unhelpful. ActivityPub design sessions are open for anybody; if you cared you would join and raise your concerns. Now you're just complaining from the sidelines. FWIW: Incomplete threads are not a problem because object URIs are resolveable.
@Gargron If you have a look at the acknowledgements of the specification, you will find my name on it. I participated in several discussions and possibly influenced some things as well - but of course not everything.
And you could also list Friendica with some "plans to implement in the future" - but currently no one is working on it here.
Concerning the threads: The problem is the comment distribution via the commenter and not the thread owner.
@heluecht AP supports comment distribution over thread owner. Mastodon v1.6.0rc1 does this.
@Gargron problem is that they were really unclear on how to do the whole signing.
@heluecht Well, we figured it out, and we did it.
@Gargron So you use "Linked Data Signatures"?
@Gargron And what are you doing with webfinger?
@heluecht webfinger returns a self-link with the AP mime type, to the actor URL (URI), that's all that webfinger needs to do
@Gargron The WG postponed the discussion about this: https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/194 - so I was unsure what to do with this. And in the whole spec, "webfinger" isn't mentioned.
Another thing that the WG postponed is a showstopper for Friendica: https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/196 - until this hadn't been defined, we cannot replace our protocol with theirs.
@Gargron It's actually called discourse