curator-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Next Steps
Date Fri, 14 Aug 2015 23:36:24 GMT
I agree that committing to 2.x and merging to 3.x is the way to go based on
previous experience with managing dual versions.

Scott, I'll have a look at your 3.0 branch tonight. Again, excuse my
ignorance of the darker bits of git, but do we know how the 3.0 branches
ended up in this state? I would have thought that if they were branched off
master at some point, then we should be able to do a merge from master into
the 3.0 branches and not have to do any cherry picking or other such
shenanigans.
cheers



On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think dual commits tend to be problematic.  I'd suggest anything for 2.x
> goes into master and then we immediately merge master into 3.0.  Anything
> for 3.0 stays in 3.0 only.  (There will soon be a discussion to be had
> about whether master should become 3.0 in the near future.)
>
>
> More immediately, has anyone had a chance to look at my proposed history
> redo?  I feel like this is starting to stall out.  Can I set a 24 period
> starting now for people to object, and if I don't hear anything, I'm going
> to go ahead and push the updates.  I will leave "old" branch markers on the
> old stuff to avoid being destructive.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > Once we have a stable 3.0 branch, should we dual-commit everything to
> > master and 3.x? The ZK3.5 "alpha" labelling can scare off some adopters,
> so
> > I think it is important to maintain 2.x for a little while longer.
> >
> > I can volunteer to do the next 2.x release once the tests are stabilized
> -
> > I'll start a new thread on that sometime this weekend.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, the 3.0 branch I created should have everything.  But let me
> > emphasize
> > > I haven't pushed this to apache yet!  I wanted you guys to check it out
> > > first, it's only pushed to my mirror.
> > >
> > > It's.... complicated to describe what I did.  Mostly rebasing, some
> > cherry
> > > picking, and fixing merge conflicts.  But using gitk to visualize what
> I
> > > was doing.  I also had to redo it once or twice when something went
> > wrong.
> > > Sorry I can't really give and exact recount... I worked on this for
> > quite a
> > > while, like 2 hours maybe.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Cameron McKenzie <
> > mckenzie.cam@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > hey Scott,
> > > > Didn't realise that you'd pushed new CURATOR-3.0 branches. So your
> > > > CURATOR-3.0 branch has all the CURATOR-3.0 related branches merged
> in.
> > > Can
> > > > I ask how you fixed the issues, as my git knowledge about weird merge
> > > > issues is basically non existent?
> > > >
> > > > When I tried to merge master into CURATOR-160 (which was the first of
> > the
> > > > CURATOR-3.0 related branches, and I believe all the others were
> > branched
> > > > off this), it seems like a few of the fast forward merges didn't
> merge
> > > > everything, which thankfully was obvious because the build failed.
> > > > cheers
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 1:49 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I thought I untangled all that?  Is he still having trouble with
> the
> > > new
> > > > > branches I pushed?  You need to do this to see my proposed
> branches:
> > > > >
> > > > > git remote add scottb https://github.com/dragonsinth/curator.git
> > > > > git remote update
> > > > >
> > > > > You should see several new branches on my remote, including these:
> > > > >
> > > > >  * [new branch]      3.0-rejects -> scottb/3.0-rejects
> > > > >  * [new branch]      CURATOR-160 -> scottb/CURATOR-160
> > > > >  * [new branch]      CURATOR-215 -> scottb/CURATOR-215
> > > > >  * [new branch]      CURATOR-3.0 -> scottb/CURATOR-3.0
> > > > >
> > > > > Please take a look at these new proposed branches!
> > > > > For example, you should be able to checkout CURATOR-3.0 and merge
> in
> > > > master
> > > > > mostly cleanly (or checkout master and merge in 3.0 mostly
> cleanly).
> > > > > If we're happy with this, I would push these branches to the apache
> > > > master.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> > > > > jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Cameron said he had trouble with 160. Any ideas?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ====================
> > > > > > Jordan Zimmerman
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Aug 13, 2015, at 10:33 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any feedback on this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Scott Blum <
> dragonsinth@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Okay, I think I'm done.  I pushed my work up to my own github
> > > mirror,
> > > > > >> https://github.com/dragonsinth/curator
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Please note the following branches I pushed:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> CURATOR-160: re-history of the original CURATOR-160 branch
work,
> > > > > >> simplified.
> > > > > >> CURATOR-215: re-history of the original CURATOR-215 branch
work,
> > > > > >> simplified.
> > > > > >> CURATOR-3.0: a proposed new SHA for the new 3.0 branch,
contains
> > the
> > > > > >> other two branches as well as several "loose" commits
> > > > > >> 3.0-rejects: a couple of final commits I didn't put into
3.0 but
> > we
> > > > > >> should consider; the fasterxml work we probably want, and
a
> loose
> > > > > println
> > > > > >> we probably don't
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Please take a look, and if we think we're in good shape,
I can
> > > > > force-push
> > > > > >> these to branches of the same name in the master repository,
> which
> > > > will
> > > > > >> overwrite where they now live (we can leave CURATOR-160-old
and
> > > > > >> CURATOR-215-old hanging around in the old spots if we really
> > want).
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I did verify the branch compiles, and it's now possible
to merge
> > > with
> > > > > >> master with minimal conflicts.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Scott Blum <
> > dragonsinth@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> One more... about commit
> > 2c576dc344a167ad4a72d71412c98d76ff4e2d3d,
> > > > > which
> > > > > >>> was part of CURATOR-160.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> The history here is a little unclear.  There are several
new
> > files
> > > > > added
> > > > > >>> (like AsyncReconfigurable.java) that aren't used anywhere,
and
> > I'm
> > > > > unclear
> > > > > >>> on how exactly the two sides of 160 were resolved.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Basically, I got to a complete end state of recreating
the 3.0
> > > > branch,
> > > > > >>> and this commit is the only one I ended up "missing"
because I
> > > think
> > > > I
> > > > > >>> grabbed the wrong "side" of
> > > ea1a1684198ca2fa317486a881d5f48466fbf8f8.
> > > > > Any
> > > > > >>> insight appreciated here.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> > > > > >>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> Because it’s a major change and we’re trying
to use semantic
> > > > > versioning
> > > > > >>>> it was decided that this change needs to be in 3.0.0.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> -JZ
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On August 12, 2015 at 2:29:59 PM, Scott Blum (
> > > dragonsinth@gmail.com
> > > > )
> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Looks like some of the weird issues are around the
revert of
> > > > > >>>> CURATOR-186, which was "Port Codehaus Jackson to
fasterxml
> > > Jackson."
> > > > > Looks
> > > > > >>>> like it was put on trunk, then reverted on trunk,
but it is
> > > supposed
> > > > > to be
> > > > > >>>> in 3.0?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Some clarification here would be great, let me know
if it's
> > > supposed
> > > > > to
> > > > > >>>> be in or out for 3.0.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Scott Blum <
> > > dragonsinth@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> My general strategy is going to be something
like this.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> From what I can tell, the main issue is that
there's a super
> > > > > >>>>> complicated development history that's now impossible
to do
> > > > anything
> > > > > with.
> > > > > >>>>> So my goal is to clean up the history in some
kind of logical
> > way
> > > > > for each
> > > > > >>>>> of the logical changes.  I don't know if that
means squashing
> > > each
> > > > > change
> > > > > >>>>> on the 3.0 branch down to a single commit, or
just paring the
> > > > > history down
> > > > > >>>>> in some way.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Next, I need to find the most recent time master
was merged
> > into
> > > > the
> > > > > >>>>> 3.0 branch.  That's actually going to be my
starting point
> for
> > a
> > > > new
> > > > > 3.0
> > > > > >>>>> branch, and I'll cherry-pick / rebase changes
from the 3.0
> > branch
> > > > > onto
> > > > > >>>>> that.  When I'm done, if I did it right, there
should be no
> > > textual
> > > > > >>>>> difference between the two branches, but mine
should have a
> > sane
> > > > > history.
> > > > > >>>>> At that point, it should be easy enough to just
rebase 3.0
> onto
> > > the
> > > > > current
> > > > > >>>>> master.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> I'm sure there will be complications but that's
my basic
> plan.
> > > > gitk
> > > > > >>>>> is my friend for this kind of thing.k
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Jordan Zimmerman
<
> > > > > >>>>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I'm pretty good with git, and untangling
branches and
> history
> > > > > >>>>>> problems, and I'm happy to take a stab at
it, but I don't
> want
> > > to
> > > > > duplicate
> > > > > >>>>>> effort.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Well - probably better than me or Cam. So,
please have at
> it.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> It looks like just CURATOR-215 and CURATOR-160
but I want to
> > be
> > > > sure
> > > > > >>>>>> I didn't miss anything.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> There will be more - but start with those.
Also, if you
> could
> > > > > explain
> > > > > >>>>>> what you’re doing so we can learn I’d
appreciate it.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> 2) Why are the changes in the 3.0 branch
not on master?  Do
> we
> > > > want
> > > > > >>>>>> them to get onto master?  If so, when?
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> 3.0.0 is tied to the ZK 3.5.x branch which
is still alpha.
> > > Master
> > > > > >>>>>> will stay tied to 3.4.x until 3.5.x is released.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> -JZ
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> On August 12, 2015 at 11:33:12 AM, Scott
Blum (
> > > > > dragonsinth@gmail.com)
> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Hey guys, I can see indeed the 3.0 branch
is indeed a giant
> > > mess.
> > > > :)
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I'm pretty good with git, and untangling
branches and
> history
> > > > > >>>>>> problems, and I'm happy to take a stab at
it, but I don't
> want
> > > to
> > > > > duplicate
> > > > > >>>>>> effort.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Two questions though.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> 1) Can we put together a conceptual list
of what's in the
> 3.0
> > > > branch
> > > > > >>>>>> now?  It looks like just CURATOR-215 and
CURATOR-160 but I
> > want
> > > to
> > > > > be sure
> > > > > >>>>>> I didn't miss anything.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> 2) Why are the changes in the 3.0 branch
not on master?  Do
> we
> > > > want
> > > > > >>>>>> them to get onto master?  If so, when?
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>>>>> Scott
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Cameron
McKenzie <
> > > > > >>>>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Right, I'm a bit stuck. I have renamed
the old branch and
> > > > created a
> > > > > >>>>>>> new
> > > > > >>>>>>> CURATOR-3.0 off master. When I try and
merge CURATOR-160, a
> > > > change
> > > > > to
> > > > > >>>>>>> CreateBuilderImpl.java gets merged (I'm
not sure why as it
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > >>>>>>> appear
> > > > > >>>>>>> on the list of affected files by CURATOR-160),
and this
> > removes
> > > > the
> > > > > >>>>>>> 'debugForceFindProtectedNode' member
variable which is used
> > by
> > > > the
> > > > > >>>>>>> TestFrameworkEdges test case.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Any ideas what's going on here? The
version on the
> > CURATOR-160
> > > > > branch
> > > > > >>>>>>> doesn't have the 'debugForceFindProtectedNode',
but it
> > appears
> > > > that
> > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>> auto merge when it comes back into the
CURATOR-3.0 branch
> > > somehow
> > > > > >>>>>>> overwrites what's in CURATOR-3.0 instead
of merging it.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Any ideas?
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Jordan
Zimmerman <
> > > > > >>>>>>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> > Maybe just rename it for now and
we can delete it later
> > > > > >>>>>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> > On August 11, 2015 at 11:28:14
PM, Cameron McKenzie (
> > > > > >>>>>>> > mckenzie.cam@gmail.com) wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> > So, I will delete the existing
CURATOR-3.0 branch?
> > > > > >>>>>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:04 PM,
Cameron McKenzie <
> > > > > >>>>>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>> > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> >> Sure thing.
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>
> > > > > >>>>>>> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:55
PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> > > > > >>>>>>> >> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com>
wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>> Go ahead, if you don’t
mind.
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>> On August 11, 2015 at 10:50:52
PM, Cameron McKenzie (
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com)
wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>> Ok, I can give that a spin
if you like, or I'm happy
> for
> > > you
> > > > to
> > > > > >>>>>>> do it
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>> and I'll branch from there
for CURATOR-214.
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at
1:42 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com>
wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> Is it just a matter
of
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> branching off master
and merging all of the
> CURATOR-3.0
> > > > > related
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> branches?
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> Yes, that’s my plan
anyway.
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> On August 11, 2015
at 10:39:25 PM, Cameron McKenzie (
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com)
wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> My git knowledge is
not deep enough to work out what's
> > > going
> > > > > on
> > > > > >>>>>>> with the
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> CURATOR-3.0 branch,
so I'm happy to go from scratch.
> Is
> > it
> > > > > just
> > > > > >>>>>>> a
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> matter of
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> branching off master
and merging all of the
> CURATOR-3.0
> > > > > related
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> branches?
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015
at 1:26 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com>
wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > We need to come
to a decision on the CURATOR-3.0
> > branch.
> > > > My
> > > > > >>>>>>> gut
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> instinct
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > is to start from
scratch. Any other ideas?
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > -JZ
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > On August 11,
2015 at 5:28:30 PM, Cameron McKenzie (
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com)
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > Also, which branch
should the CURATOR-214 fix come
> > off?
> > > > From
> > > > > >>>>>>> memory
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > CURATOR-3.0 branch
was broken in some capacity.
> > Should I
> > > > be
> > > > > >>>>>>> branching
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> off
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > CURATOR-3.0-temp
or something else?
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > cheers
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > On Wed, Aug 12,
2015 at 8:09 AM, Cameron McKenzie <
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > Will do. In the
meantime could you please have a
> look
> > at
> > > > my
> > > > > >>>>>>> suggested
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > solution for CURATOR-228
(It's in the JIRA)? I don't
> > > want
> > > > to
> > > > > >>>>>>> start
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> work on
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > it until we have
an agreed solution.
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > cheers
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > On Wed, Aug 12,
2015 at 12:23 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > jordan@jordanzimmerman.com>
wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > Hi Cameron,
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > Go ahead and do
CURATOR-214 - I assigned it to you.
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > -JZ
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > On August 9, 2015
at 6:47:50 PM, Cameron McKenzie (
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com)
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > Sounds reasonable,
what's left for 3.0.0?
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > I think that watcher
removal is done. So just the
> host
> > > > > >>>>>>> provider (
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-213)
> > and
> > > > new
> > > > > >>>>>>> create
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> APIs (
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-214).
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > I'm happy to pick
up the new create APIs if no one
> > else
> > > is
> > > > > >>>>>>> looking at
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> it.
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > cheers
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > On Mon, Aug 10,
2015 at 9:39 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > jordan@jordanzimmerman.com>
wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > On August 9, 2015
at 5:15:36 PM, Cameron McKenzie (
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com)
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > As for Curator
3.0.0, any ideas when ZK 3.5.x is
> mean
> > to
> > > > get
> > > > > >>>>>>> out of
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> Alpha?
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > I've seen some
grumblings on the ZK mailing list,
> but
> > > > > nothing
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> concrete. I
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > guess we just
need to be ready for that date
> whenever
> > it
> > > > is.
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > cheers
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > Cam
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > Who knows :) But,
I know people are using it in
> > > Production
> > > > > so
> > > > > >>>>>>> I think
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> we
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > should just treat
it as released software.
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > -JZ
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> >>
> > > > > >>>>>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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