brooklyn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Duncan Godwin <duncan.god...@cloudsoftcorp.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Split Brooklyn website and documentation
Date Mon, 16 Oct 2017 09:47:56 GMT
+1

I think this format of docs is a massive improvement on the previous,
really great work! Splitting it is also a good idea.

I'm not a massive fan of putting the docs and website on different
branches, I think this can obscure things. For the short term this might be
a reasonable way to proceed but I think longer term if this split is to be
kept, we should have separate repos or some other mechanism.

Many thanks

Duncan

On 16 October 2017 at 10:25, Richard Downer <richard@apache.org> wrote:

> All,
>
> As a co-conspirator on this I am obviously +1 to it :-) But it would be
> good to hear some more POVs on this.
>
> Thomas and I (mostly Thomas) have come up with a solution which we believe
> has "feature parity" with the current docs solution, except for some cases
> where we believe the feature is not significant (or actually an
> anti-feature). This solution provides something which is easier to
> navigate, easier to turn into PDF, and it does all these using
> off-the-shelf tools and no bespoke code (no more Ruby-based Jekyll
> plugins!)
>
> The new solution does look different, in that it is not a slave to our
> current website design, but its styling does incorporate the key design
> elements (typography, colour scheme). It is not tightly integrated with the
> website as the current docs is, but we do not consider this to be a major
> issue. In my personal opinion, having such tight integration turned into an
> anti-feature, as it caused conflicts between the version-related and
> non-version-related pages. (For an example, browse for earlier versions of
> the Brooklyn documentation - suddenly there are changes to the website
> styling and the illusion of close integration is lost).
>
> I am in favour of proceeding with this change and seeing how it goes - if
> it does not work out, then we can revert back. Any documentation changes in
> the affected period should be easily backportable to the old-style website.
>
> In addition to Thomas's branch which forks the existing brooklyn-docs and
> deletes the website, I have an alternative fork which deletes the docs,
> where work on the website-only tools and content can be done. With the docs
> removed there's a lot of scope to remove lots of code from the tooling. In
> the future we would maybe want to look at further changes to the website,
> such as upgrading to a newer version of Jekyll and investigating newer
> Jekyll plugins, with the aim of removing all our bespoke code.
>
> Richard.
>
>
> On 15 October 2017 at 17:20, Thomas Bouron <thomas.bouron@cloudsoftcorp.
> com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all.
> >
> > I just pushed the last set of commits to my fork for the docs[1]. This
> now
> > contains the docs generated by gitbook and a build script[2] to generate
> > the javadoc at the right place (i.e. misc/javadoc). The last commit[3]
> > updates the README to include the updated release instructions. With
> this,
> > I think we are now ready to go.
> >
> > In terms of next steps, Richard suggested to have the codebase for
> website
> > and docs in 2 separate branches. This is how GitHub pages works for
> example
> > and it makes sense to me. Unless someone is against this, I will create 2
> > branches on the git repo, `website` and `docs` and open a PR again `docs`
> > on Monday.
> >
> > Best.
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/tbouron/brooklyn-docs/tree/experiment/gitbook
> > [2]
> > https://github.com/tbouron/brooklyn-docs/blob/experiment/
> > gitbook/javadoc/build.sh
> > [3]
> > https://github.com/tbouron/brooklyn-docs/commit/
> > e931560888ce51625e56e6202ead757f9d876090
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 at 13:02 Thomas Bouron <thomas.bouron@cloudsoftcorp.
> > com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Alex, all.
> > >
> > > For the past few days, I worked with Richard on this doc spike. Here
> is a
> > > short summary of what we have done:
> > > - add collapse/expandable sections on the left menu
> > > - add documentation versioning (version dropdown, top left)
> > > - improve PDF output
> > > - fix all internal links
> > > - use brooklyn styling
> > >
> > > One thing left is to use YAML examples from the Brooklyn codebase.
> There
> > > is a plugin to do exactly that (which supports to import only a snippet
> > > from a file)
> > > Unfortunately, most of the doc examples exist only in the docs repo
> > > therefore I think we should resolve this later on, as an incremental
> > change.
> > >
> > > I published the new version on the same URL as before[1], hope you will
> > > like it. Spoiler alert: I do :)
> > >
> > > PS: I created a gitbook plugin[2] to auto-generate menus on pages like
> > > this one[3]. However, I had a chat with a maintainer (founder?) of
> > Gitbook
> > > who told me[4] that version 4 will include, out of the box, most
> plugins
> > we
> > > currently use! They have a preview[5] of what is does.
> > >
> > > Best.
> > >
> > > [1] https://tbouron.github.io/brooklyn-docs
> > > [2] https://github.com/tbouron/gitbook-plugin-partial-summary
> > > [3] https://tbouron.github.io/brooklyn-docs/start/
> > > [4]
> > > https://gitbook-community.slack.com/archives/C0B5XG0GK/
> p1507893620000134
> > > [5] https://betadocs.gitbook.com/features
> > >
> > > On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 at 12:20 Alex Heneveld <
> > > alex.heneveld@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Thomas-
> > >>
> > >> Had a deeper look -- gitbook has moved things forward a lot. Sounds
> like
> > >> it will let us throw away a lot of our home-grown docs-building and
> > >> toc-building code and have good search.  Look forward to seeing how it
> > >> shapes up with styling and guide-v-website integration.
> > >>
> > >> Best
> > >> Alex
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 09/10/2017 09:54, Thomas Bouron wrote:
> > >> > Thanks Mark.
> > >> >
> > >> > Regarding maintenance, it will be as easy as the current version.
> > >> Updating
> > >> > docs means updating markdown files. Adding/moving pages requires to
> > >> modify
> > >> > the `SUMMARY.md` but that's it.
> > >> > One really cool thing is that Gitbook is a node app: really simple
> to
> > >> > install/run compare to our current solution which runs only on an
> old
> > >> > version of ruby => no more pain of using different versions of
ruby
> on
> > >> your
> > >> > environment.
> > >> >
> > >> > In terms of feature gaps, Gitbook provides the same or more features
> > >> than
> > >> > Jekyll out the box:
> > >> > - search! That is a big one, not available with Jekyll
> > >> > - include of external files
> > >> > - syntax highlighting
> > >> > - plugins system
> > >> > - custom theme
> > >> >
> > >> > Best.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Sat, 7 Oct 2017, 17:10 Mark McKenna, <m4rkmckenna@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Thomas this looks really clean great work.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> How much work do you think it will take to maintain vs our current
> > >> >> solution?
> > >> >> What do you see as being the current feature gaps?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> M
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 at 14:55 Thomas Bouron <
> > >> thomas.bouron@cloudsoftcorp.com
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> Hi Richard.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Of course, I pushed it to my fork on the branch
> > >> `experiment/gitbook`[1]
> > >> >>> Glad you like it :)
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Best.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> [1] https://github.com/tbouron/brooklyn-docs/tree/experiment/
> > gitbook
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 at 13:53 Andrea Turli <andrea@cloudsoft.io>
> > wrote:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>> +1 Thomas, didn't know Gitbook at all (that's why I suggested
> > >> >>> readthedocs)
> > >> >>>> but looks pretty good!
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Il 06/ott/2017 15:37, "Richard Downer" <richard@apache.org>
ha
> > >> >> scritto:
> > >> >>>> Hi Thomas,
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> I withdraw my previous comments - I looked at ReadTheDocs
last
> year
> > >> and
> > >> >>> was
> > >> >>>> pessimistic, but it seems that GitBook this year is a
different
> > story
> > >> >> :-)
> > >> >>>> This is worth pursuing IMO. What did you need to do to
get this
> > >> >> working?
> > >> >>>> Did you have to do any work on the brooklyn-docs source
- if so
> > could
> > >> >> you
> > >> >>>> share a link to your repo?
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Thanks
> > >> >>>> Richard.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On 6 October 2017 at 13:18, Thomas Bouron
> > >> <thomas.bouron@cloudsoftcorp.
> > >> >>> com
> > >> >>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>> Hi All.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> A demo is worth a thousand words so here is a gitbook
adaptation
> > of
> > >> >> our
> > >> >>>>> current documentation[1] (and only documentation)
> > >> >>>>> This took me only a couple of hours. There are still
things to
> > >> >>>>> fix/update/remove like unsupported liquid tags but
for the most
> > >> part,
> > >> >>> it
> > >> >>>>> works like a charm.
> > >> >>>>> Search is available from the search field on the top
left and
> > >> PDF[2],
> > >> >>>>> epub[3] amd mobi[4] versions are also available.
> > >> >>>>> The build took only 10 sec + 10 more per offline version.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> The table of content mirrors exactly what we currently
have,
> > except
> > >> >>> that
> > >> >>>> I
> > >> >>>>> have limited it to only 2 sub-levels. It means that
some pages
> are
> > >> >>>> missing
> > >> >>>>> but I think it demonstrates that our current menu
organisation
> > could
> > >> >> be
> > >> >>>>> vastly improved.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Couple of thoughts on Alex's points:
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> * for the examples, import source code that is
actually used in
> > >> >> tests
> > >> >>>>> (!!!)
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Indeed, an overhaul does not solve it, nor our current
> framework.
> > >> But
> > >> >>>> both
> > >> >>>>> can implement it.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> * check links
> > >> >>>>> Gitbook checks internal links at compile time and
refuses to
> build
> > >> if
> > >> >>>>> something is wrong. AFAIK, there is nothing in the
Gitbook world
> > to
> > >> >>> check
> > >> >>>>> the validity of external links like the Jekyll plugin
does.
> There
> > >> are
> > >> >>>>> probably external tools that we can integrate in our
build
> > pipeline
> > >> >> to
> > >> >>>>> cover this. However, it seems that even if we have
this tool, we
> > >> >> don't
> > >> >>>> use
> > >> >>>>> it when pushing the website (as I get a lot of errors
locally)
> > >> >>>>> Realistically, we will always have broken links, things
move
> > around
> > >> >> all
> > >> >>>> the
> > >> >>>>> time. Checking external links is a nice-to-have but
far from
> > being a
> > >> >>>>> perfect solution. In any case, I don't see this point
as
> important
> > >> as
> > >> >>> you
> > >> >>>>> do.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> * think through user flow
> > >> >>>>> The clear Gitbook menu exposes this pretty well IMO
and better
> > >> >> compared
> > >> >>>> to
> > >> >>>>> the current version so that's a win.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Best.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> [1] https://tbouron.github.io/brooklyn-docs/
> > >> >>>>> [2] https://tbouron.github.io/brooklyn-docs/brooklyn.pdf
> > >> >>>>> [3] https://tbouron.github.io/brooklyn-docs/brooklyn.epub
> > >> >>>>> [4] https://tbouron.github.io/brooklyn-docs/brooklyn.mobi
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 at 12:47 Richard Downer <richard@apache.org>
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>> Thank you for the research you have done Thomas.
I've had
> similar
> > >> >>>>> thoughts
> > >> >>>>>> myself. The original goal of our web+docs was
to integrate them
> > in
> > >> >>> such
> > >> >>>> a
> > >> >>>>>> way that we had a versioned user guide that integrated
> perfectly
> > >> >> with
> > >> >>>> the
> > >> >>>>>> main website. At the time, Markdown tools were
relatively
> > immature,
> > >> >>>> with
> > >> >>>>>> Jekyll leading the pack (and being the fashionable
choice), and
> > >> >> very
> > >> >>>>> little
> > >> >>>>>> in the way of viable apps for generating books
with structure
> and
> > >> >>>> tables
> > >> >>>>> of
> > >> >>>>>> contents. We did the best we could with the tools
we had, but
> > they
> > >> >>>> needed
> > >> >>>>>> significant extensions (via Jekyll plugins and
build
> scripting).
> > >> >>> Those
> > >> >>>>>> plugins and scripts have turned into something
fairly hairy -
> IMO
> > >> >> we
> > >> >>>>>> shouldn't need to have to write this much code[1]
to generate a
> > >> >>> static
> > >> >>>>> site
> > >> >>>>>> and manual. With hindsight, I would not have argued
in favour
> of
> > >> >> this
> > >> >>>>>> model. If I do write my book[2] I will most likely
be writing
> it
> > in
> > >> >>>>>> ReStructuredText and processing it with Sphinx
(and no
> additional
> > >> >>>>>> scripting/tooling!).
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> That said, when I have looked at changing Brooklyn's
> > documentation
> > >> >>>>> system,
> > >> >>>>>> it has not looked easy. With our home-grown TOC
generating
> code,
> > >> >>> we're
> > >> >>>>> not
> > >> >>>>>> off-the-shelf compatible with other systems. Moving
to another
> > >> >>> system,
> > >> >>>>> even
> > >> >>>>>> if it is Markdown-based, would still involve a
lot of manual
> work
> > >> >>>>> changing
> > >> >>>>>> our document metadata to the new system, and adapting
to
> replace
> > >> >> the
> > >> >>>>> Jekyll
> > >> >>>>>> plugins and the content that uses them (e.g. syntax
> highlighting,
> > >> >>> file
> > >> >>>>>> inclusion). Unless you have discovered something
I didn't,
> > Thomas,
> > >> >>> then
> > >> >>>> I
> > >> >>>>>> fear this will be a lot of work, mostly manual.
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> In short, yes I like the idea of replacing our
home-grown and
> > >> >>>>>> home-maintained code with an existing and supported
app, but
> no I
> > >> >>> don't
> > >> >>>>>> think the effort of a big-bang migration justifies
the results
> > *at
> > >> >>> this
> > >> >>>>>> time*.
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> Some things I would support:
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> - Continued incremental improvements to both the
website and
> the
> > >> >> user
> > >> >>>>>> guide. IMO we have more problems with the content
than with the
> > >> >>>> tooling,
> > >> >>>>>> and we can still make a lot of improvements to
the usability of
> > our
> > >> >>>> docs
> > >> >>>>>> and website without tooling changes.
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> - Breaking the tight integration between website
and user
> guide.
> > >> >>> "Fork"
> > >> >>>>> the
> > >> >>>>>> existing infrastructure but then have two build
systems
> tailored
> > >> >> for
> > >> >>>>> their
> > >> >>>>>> purpose rather than one that tried to meet two
different needs.
> > >> >> Would
> > >> >>>>> allow
> > >> >>>>>> the existing stuff to continue to work while opening
the door
> to
> > >> >>>>> replacing
> > >> >>>>>> the guide tooling and redeveloping the website,
independently
> of
> > >> >> each
> > >> >>>>>> other, at a future date.
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> - Evaluating how other systems use metadata to
describe the
> book
> > >> >>>>> structure,
> > >> >>>>>> and gradually adding support for this to our own
tools and
> > >> >> migrating
> > >> >>>>>> content. Then at a later date, when the content
is
> > >> >> nearly-compatible
> > >> >>>> with
> > >> >>>>>> GitBook or some other system, it'll be easier
to do the
> > migration.
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> What do you think? Will following an incremental
approach like
> > this
> > >> >>>> allow
> > >> >>>>>> us to make improvements gradually rather than
a "big bang"
> > >> >>> replacement
> > >> >>>> of
> > >> >>>>>> tooling?
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> Richard.
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> [1]
> > >> >> https://gist.github.com/rdowner/a09a268b37904a03c452797e7afe56ca
> > >> >>>> but
> > >> >>>>>> consider the COCOMO figures with appropriate cynicism
> > >> >>>>>> [2]
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/
> 6f19475bbc0570a3b9e3d1ae1b75b2
> > >> >>>>> b8ee4b2485b3b41d085c342dff@%3Cdev.brooklyn.apache.org%3E
> > >> >>>>>> On 5 October 2017 at 11:23, Thomas Bouron
> > >> >>> <thomas.bouron@cloudsoftcorp.
> > >> >>>>> com
> > >> >>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> Hi all.
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> It's been a couple of weeks that I started
to look at how to
> > >> >>> improve
> > >> >>>>> and
> > >> >>>>>>> simplify the Brookyln website[1]. As I said
on the Brooklyn
> 1.0
> > >> >>>>>> thread[2],
> > >> >>>>>>> I think we need to sort this out before releasing
1.0.
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> I have looked for a framework / library to
handle both the
> > >> >> website
> > >> >>>> and
> > >> >>>>>>> documentation the same way we do it right
now. To determine
> what
> > >> >>> was
> > >> >>>>> the
> > >> >>>>>>> best fit, I based my analysis on the following
criteria:
> > >> >>>>>>> - Able to take markdown files and generate
HTML from them.
> > >> >>>>>>> - Keep the folder structure intact (currently,
pages that
> seems
> > >> >> in
> > >> >>>> the
> > >> >>>>>> same
> > >> >>>>>>> logical group - take pages in the download
section[3] menu -
> > jump
> > >> >>>> into
> > >> >>>>> a
> > >> >>>>>>> different folder/category/section which is
very confusing)
> > >> >>>>>>> - Be skinnable
> > >> >>>>>>> - Able to handle versions for documentation.
> > >> >>>>>>> - Able to generate PDF version of documentation.
> > >> >>>>>>> - Be as "stock" as possible to limit maintenance
and pain
> during
> > >> >>>>> upgrade
> > >> >>>>>>> (our current website still uses Jekyll 2.x).
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> 2 contenders clearly jumped out from this:
> > >> >>>>>>> - Jekyll[4]
> > >> >>>>>>> - Gitbook[5]
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> ----
> > >> >>>>>>> Jekyll
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> With the version 3, Jekyll now has a concept
of collections[6]
> > >> >>> which
> > >> >>>>> can
> > >> >>>>>>> generate pages from markdown files and keep
the folder
> > structure.
> > >> >>>>>>> The menu can be generated based on this folder
structure (with
> > >> >>> depth
> > >> >>>>>>> limitation for example) in combination of
some clever liquid
> > tags
> > >> >>> and
> > >> >>>>>>> `include`. However, it will be hard to control
the order of
> > items
> > >> >>>>>> appearing
> > >> >>>>>>> on the menu. Another easy solution would be
maintain list of
> > >> >> links
> > >> >>>> for
> > >> >>>>>> the
> > >> >>>>>>> menu to be generated.
> > >> >>>>>>> There are plugins to generate PDF[7], which
happens during
> > >> >> compile
> > >> >>>>> time.
> > >> >>>>>>> Finally, Jekyll is highly skinnable with built-in
or custom
> > >> >> themes.
> > >> >>>>>>> ----
> > >> >>>>>>> Gitbook
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> Gitbook, in its open source version, handles
out of the box
> doc
> > >> >>>>>> versioning,
> > >> >>>>>>> PDF generation at runtime (so it seems) HTML
pages generation
> > >> >> from
> > >> >>>>>>> markdown. The menu is built-in feature, based
on a simple
> > >> >> markdown
> > >> >>>> list
> > >> >>>>>> of
> > >> >>>>>>> links[8]. This means we need to maintain it
but there is a
> good
> > >> >>>> chance
> > >> >>>>> we
> > >> >>>>>>> will have to do this with Jekyll as well.
Finally, Gitbook is
> > >> >> also
> > >> >>>>> easily
> > >> >>>>>>> skinnable[9].
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> ----
> > >> >>>>>>> Both frameworks offer mostly the same features.
However,
> Jekyll
> > >> >> is
> > >> >>>>> easier
> > >> >>>>>>> to build a website that looks like a "corporate"
one whereas
> > with
> > >> >>>>>> Gitbook,
> > >> >>>>>>> you are "stuck" with the design principals
it was created,
> i.e.
> > >> >>> serve
> > >> >>>>>>> documentation only. But for this very purpose,
it is extremely
> > >> >> good
> > >> >>>> and
> > >> >>>>>>> easy.
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> Our website is the combination of both a "corporate
website"
> > >> >> (i.e.
> > >> >>>>> about,
> > >> >>>>>>> getting started, community, etc - few pages
that describe the
> > >> >>>> project)
> > >> >>>>>> and
> > >> >>>>>>> a documentation.
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> Which leads me to my proposal: separate the
website from the
> > >> >>>>>> documentation,
> > >> >>>>>>> at least in terms of how we build it. What
I mean by this is:
> > >> >>>>>>> - Use Jekyll (or even nothing) for the website,
except the
> > >> >>>>> documentation
> > >> >>>>>>> part. This will let us build a nice theme
(based on Bootstrap
> 4
> > >> >> for
> > >> >>>>>>> example) without to worry about complicated
plugins and custom
> > >> >> code
> > >> >>>> for
> > >> >>>>>> the
> > >> >>>>>>> documentation.
> > >> >>>>>>> - Use Gitbook for the documentation alone,
applying/adapting
> the
> > >> >>>> theme
> > >> >>>>> we
> > >> >>>>>>> will create from the point above.
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> Best.
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> [1] https://brooklyn.apache.org/
> > >> >>>>>>> [2]
> > >> >>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/
> > >> >>> dae4468aa7ef77af9dc8aca24b8434
> > >> >>>>>>> e9782efbd50fa876618cccf980@%3Cdev.brooklyn.apache.org%3E
> > >> >>>>>>> [3] https://brooklyn.apache.org/download/index.html
> > >> >>>>>>> [4] https://jekyllrb.com/
> > >> >>>>>>> [5] https://github.com/GitbookIO/gitbook
> > >> >>>>>>> [6] https://jekyllrb.com/docs/collections/
> > >> >>>>>>> [7] http://abemedia.co.uk/jekyll-pdf/
> > >> >>>>>>> [8] https://toolchain.gitbook.com/pages.html
> > >> >>>>>>> [9] https://toolchain.gitbook.com/themes/
> > >> >>>>>>> --
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> Thomas Bouron • Senior Software Engineer
@ Cloudsoft
> Corporation
> > >> >> •
> > >> >>>>>>> https://cloudsoft.io/
> > >> >>>>>>> Github: https://github.com/tbouron
> > >> >>>>>>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/eltibouron
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>> --
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Thomas Bouron • Senior Software Engineer @ Cloudsoft
> Corporation •
> > >> >>>>> https://cloudsoft.io/
> > >> >>>>> Github: https://github.com/tbouron
> > >> >>>>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/eltibouron
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>> --
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Thomas Bouron • Senior Software Engineer @ Cloudsoft Corporation
•
> > >> >>> https://cloudsoft.io/
> > >> >>> Github: https://github.com/tbouron
> > >> >>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/eltibouron
> > >> >>>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >
> > > Thomas Bouron • Senior Software Engineer @ Cloudsoft Corporation •
> > > https://cloudsoft.io/
> > > Github: https://github.com/tbouron
> > > Twitter: https://twitter.com/eltibouron
> > >
> > --
> >
> > Thomas Bouron • Senior Software Engineer @ Cloudsoft Corporation •
> > https://cloudsoft.io/
> > Github: https://github.com/tbouron
> > Twitter: https://twitter.com/eltibouron
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message