drill-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wes McKinney <...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative
Date Wed, 30 Dec 2015 20:03:24 GMT
Great to hear on the name approval!

If it is OK I will consolidate to 1 repo and nest the C++ code under
cpp/ and add some format Markdown files there in the next week or so.

One repo is perfectly fine (as compared with Parquet) as long as the
language implementations can evolve and be released in a
non-monolithic way.

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com> wrote:
> Good news guys, Apache trademarks just approved the name Apache Arrow [1]. I
> will update the proposal and resubmit to the board.
>
> thanks,
> Jacques
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92
>
> --
> Jacques Nadeau
> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Julian Hyde <jhyde@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> You can also do the trick of having two branches that diverge at the very
>> first commit. C++ and Java are in the same repository but if you have a
>> given branch checked out you are looking at one or the other.
>>
>> That said, I’d be inclined to put everything in the same repo.
>>
>> The repo size will not be prohibitive as long as we follow Julien’s
>> recommendation to put large objects (e.g. test data sets) elsewhere.
>>
>> And it makes it possible for a single patch to update both C++ and Java
>> code lines, and also update shared content (the specification and the source
>> files for the web site).
>>
>> And having said THAT, it doesn’t really matter. If we realize we’ve made a
>> horrible mistake in 2 years we can split the repo or merge the repos.
>>
>> Julian
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 17, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Julien Le Dem <julien@ledem.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > I guess what I meant is: separate repos => separate releases.
>> > One repo can still have separate releases as was mentioned.
>> >
>> > I’m not too fond of the separate repos in parquet anymore.
>> > The only reason I would split to a separate repo now is if we have large
>> > files for regression testing and that’s because of how git works.
>> >
>> > Separate directories java and cpp seems a given since they will build
>> > independently.
>> >
>> > I’d vote for just one repo with /format /java /cpp.
>> > both /java and /cpp depend on /format
>> >
>> > releasing the format independently is useful because the semantics are
>> > different than for an API.
>> > A breaking change in the format may not be an API change and vice-versa.
>> >
>> > Julien
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Dec 16, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> One repo should be a given.
>> >>
>> >> Separate directories should be the question.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Jason Altekruse
>> >> <altekrusejason@gmail.com <mailto:altekrusejason@gmail.com>>
wrote:
>> >> I think that is a worthwhile discussion, parallel vs independent
>> >> releases, but I don't understand why it relates to one repo or not. Couldn't
>> >> the release tag names just include the language (cpp, java python)? What
>> >> other parts of version control are related to releasing?
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Julien Le Dem <julien@dremio.com
>> >> <mailto:julien@dremio.com>> wrote:
>> >> for the git repos it boils down to wether we want to release arrow-cpp
>> >> and arrow-java independently or together with the same version numbers.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com
>> >> <mailto:jacques@dremio.com>> wrote:
>> >> Thanks Wes, that's great!
>> >> On Dec 14, 2015 9:44 AM, "Wes McKinney" <wes@cloudera.com
>> >> <mailto:wes@cloudera.com>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> hi folks,
>> >>>
>> >>> In the interim I created a new public GitHub organization to host code
>> >>> for this effort so we can organize ourselves in advance of more
>> >>> progress in the ASF:
>> >>>
>> >>> https://github.com/arrow-data <https://github.com/arrow-data>
>> >>>
>> >>> I have a partial C++ implementation of the Arrow spec that I can move
>> >>> there, along with a to-be-Markdown-ified version of a specification
>> >>> subject to more iteration. The more pressing short term matter will
be
>> >>> making some progress on the metadata / data headers / IPC protocol
>> >>> (e.g. using Flatbuffers or the like).
>> >>>
>> >>> Thoughts on git repo structure?
>> >>>
>> >>> 1) Avro-style — "one repo to rule them all"
>> >>> 2) Parquet-style — arrow-format, arrow-cpp, arrow-java, etc.
>> >>>
>> >>> (I'm personally more in the latter camp, though integration tests may
>> >>> be more tedious that way)
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com
>> >>> <mailto:jacques@dremio.com>> wrote:
>> >>>> I've opened a name search for our top vote getter.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92
>> >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I also just realized that my previously email dropped other
>> >>>> recipients.
>> >>>> Here it is below.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ----
>> >>>> I think we can call the voting closed. Top vote getters:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Apache Arrow (17)
>> >>>> Apache Herringbone (9)
>> >>>> Apache Joist (8)
>> >>>> Apache Colbuf (8)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'll up a PODLINGNAMESEARCH-* shortly for Arrow.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ---
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
>> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Marcel Kornacker <marcel@cloudera.com
>> >>>> <mailto:marcel@cloudera.com>>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Just added my vote.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Wes McKinney <wes@cloudera.com
>> >>>>> <mailto:wes@cloudera.com>> wrote:
>> >>>>>> Shall we call the voting closed? Any last stragglers?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com
>> >>>>>> <mailto:ted.dunning@gmail.com>>
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Apache can handle this if we set the groundwork in place.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Also, Twitter's lawyers work for Twitter, not for Apache.
As such,
>> >>>>>>> their
>> >>>>>>> opinions can't be taken by Apache as legal advice. 
There are
>> >>>>>>> issues
>> >>> of
>> >>>>>>> privilege, conflict of interest and so on.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Alex Levenson
>> >>>>>>> <alexlevenson@twitter.com <mailto:alexlevenson@twitter.com>>
>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> I can ask about whether Twitter's lawyers can help
out -- is that
>> >>>>>>>> something we need? Or is that something apache helps
out with in
>> >>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>> next
>> >>>>>>>> step?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Julian Hyde <jhyde@apache.org
>> >>>>>>>> <mailto:jhyde@apache.org>>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> +1 to have a vote tomorrow.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Assuming that Vector is out of play, I just
did a quick search
>> >>>>>>>>> for
>> >>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>> top 4 remaining, (“arrow”, “honeycomb”,
“herringbone”, “joist"),
>> >>>>>>>>> at
>> >>>>>>>>> sourceforge, open hub, trademarkia, and on google.
There are no
>> >>>>>>>>> trademarks
>> >>>>>>>>> for these in similar subject areas. There is
a moderately active
>> >>>>>>>>> project
>> >>>>>>>>> called “joist” [1].
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I will point out that “Apache Arrow” has
native-american
>> >>> connotations
>> >>>>>>>>> that we may or may not want to live with (just
ask the
>> >>>>>>>>> Washington
>> >>>>>>>>> Redskins
>> >>>>>>>>> how they feel about their name).
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> If someone would like to vet other names, use
the links on
>> >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90
>> >>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90>,
and
>> >>> fill
>> >>>>>>>>> out
>> >>>>>>>>> column C in the spreadsheet.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Julian
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/stephenh/joist
>> >>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/stephenh/joist>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Jacques Nadeau
<jacques@dremio.com
>> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:jacques@dremio.com>>
>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> +1
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Wes McKinney
<wes@cloudera.com
>> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:wes@cloudera.com>>
>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Should we have a last call for votes, closing
EOD tomorrow
>> >>> (Tuesday)?
>> >>>>>>>>> I
>> >>>>>>>>> missed this for a few days last week with holiday
travel.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Julian Hyde
<
>> >>> julian@hydromatic.net <mailto:julian@hydromatic.net>>
>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache branding
process but
>> >>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>> first
>> >>>>>>>>> stage is to gather a list of potential conflicts
-
>> >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90
>> >>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90>
is an
>> >>>>>>>>> example.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> The other part, frankly, is to pick your battles.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> A year or so ago Actian re-branded Vectorwise
as Vector.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/
>> >>> <http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/>.
>> >>>>>>>>> Given that it is an analytic database in the
Hadoop space I
>> >>>>>>>>> think
>> >>>>>>>>> that is
>> >>>>>>>>> as close to a “direct hit” as it gets. I
don’t think we need a
>> >>> lawyer
>> >>>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>>> tell us that. Certainly it makes sense to look
for conflicts for
>> >>> the
>> >>>>>>>>> other
>> >>>>>>>>> alternatives before consulting lawyers.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Julian
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Marcel Kornacker
>> >>>>>>>>> <marcel@cloudera.com <mailto:marcel@cloudera.com>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques Nadeau
<
>> >>> jacques@dremio.com <mailto:jacques@dremio.com>>
>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Ok guys,
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis
of viaability.
>> >>>>>>>>> I
>> >>>>>>>>> did a
>> >>>>>>>>> quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems
like it would have
>> >>>>>>>>> an
>> >>>>>>>>> issue
>> >>>>>>>>> with conflict of an Actian product. The may
be fine. Let's do a
>> >>>>>>>>> second
>> >>>>>>>>> phase vote.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I'm assuming you mean Vectorwise?
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Before we do anything else, could we have a
lawyer look into
>> >>>>>>>>> this?
>> >>>>>>>>> Last
>> >>>>>>>>> time around that I remember (Parquet), Twitter's
lawyers did a
>> >>>>>>>>> good
>> >>>>>>>>> job
>> >>>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>>> weeding out the potential trademark violations.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Alex, could Twitter get involved this time around
as well?
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Pick your top 3 (1,2,3 with 3 being top preference)
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Let's get this done by Friday and then we can
do a podling name
>> >>>>>>>>> search
>> >>>>>>>>> starting with the top one.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Link again:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1
>> >>> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> thanks
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Jacques Nadeau
<
>> >>> jacques@dremio.com <mailto:jacques@dremio.com>>
>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Ok, it looks like we have a candidate list (we
actually got 11
>> >>> since
>> >>>>>>>>> there was a three-way tie for ninth place):
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> VectorArrowhoneycombHerringbonejoistV2Pietcolbufbatonimpulsevictor
>> >>>>>>>>> Next we need to do trademark searches on each
of these to see
>> >>> whether
>> >>>>>>>>> we're likely to have success. I've moved candidates
to a second
>> >>> tab:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532
>> >>> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Anybody want to give a hand in analyzing potential
conflicts?
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jacques Nadeau
<
>> >>> jacques@dremio.com <mailto:jacques@dremio.com>>
>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Everybody should pick their ten favorites using
the numbers 1 to
>> >>> 10.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> 10 is most preferred
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Ted Dunning
<
>> >>> ted.dunning@gmail.com <mailto:ted.dunning@gmail.com>>
>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Single vote for most preferred?
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Single transferable vote?
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jacques Nadeau
<
>> >>> jacques@dremio.com <mailto:jacques@dremio.com>>
>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Given that a bunch of people added names to
the sheet, I'll take
>> >>>>>>>>> that as tacit agreement to the proposed process.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Let's move to the first vote phase. I've added
a column for
>> >>>>>>>>> everybody's votes. Let's try to wrap up the
vote by 10am on
>> >>>>>>>>> Wednesday.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> thanks!
>> >>>>>>>>> Jacques
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jacques Nadeau
<
>> >>> jacques@apache.org <mailto:jacques@apache.org>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Hey Guys,
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> It sounds like we need to do a little more work
on the Vector
>> >>>>>>>>> proposal
>> >>>>>>>>> before the board would like to consider it.
The main point of
>> >>>>>>>>> contention
>> >>>>>>>>> right now is the name of the project. We need
to decide on a
>> >>>>>>>>> name
>> >>>>>>>>> and get
>> >>>>>>>>> it signed off through PODLINGNAMESEARCH.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Naming is extremely subjective so I'd like to
propose a process
>> >>>>>>>>> for
>> >>>>>>>>> selection that minimizes pain. This is an initial
proposal and
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> We do the naming in the following steps
>> >>>>>>>>> - 1: Collect a set of names to be considered
>> >>>>>>>>> - 2: Run a vote for 2 days where each member
ranks their top 10
>> >>>>>>>>> options
>> >>>>>>>>> 1..10
>> >>>>>>>>> - 3: Take the top ten vote getters and do a
basic analysis of
>> >>>>>>>>> whether we
>> >>>>>>>>> think that any have legal issues. Keep dropping
names that have
>> >>>>>>>>> this until
>> >>>>>>>>> we get with 10 reasonably solid candidate names
>> >>>>>>>>> - 5: Take the top ten names and give people
48 hours to rank
>> >>>>>>>>> their
>> >>>>>>>>> top 3
>> >>>>>>>>> names
>> >>>>>>>>> - 6: Start a PODLINGNAMESEARCH on the top rank
one, if that
>> >>>>>>>>> doesn't
>> >>>>>>>>> work,
>> >>>>>>>>> try the second and third options.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I suggest we take name suggestions for step
1 from everyone but
>> >>> then
>> >>>>>>>>> constrain the voting to the newly proposed project
[1]. We could
>> >>>>>>>>> just do
>> >>>>>>>>> this in a private email thread but I think doing
it on Drill dev
>> >>>>>>>>> is
>> >>>>>>>>> better
>> >>>>>>>>> in the interest of transparency. This isn't
the perfect place
>> >>>>>>>>> for
>> >>>>>>>>> that but
>> >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure a better place exists.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I'm up for changing any or all of this depending
on what others
>> >>>>>>>>> think. Just
>> >>>>>>>>> wanted to get the ball rolling on a proposed
process.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> If this works, I've posted a doc at [2] that
we can use for step
>> >>>>>>>>> 1.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>>>>>> Jacques
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> [1] List of proposed new project members/voters:
Todd Lipcon,
>> >>>>>>>>> Ted
>> >>>>>>>>> Dunning,
>> >>>>>>>>> Michael Stack, P. Taylor Goetz, Julian Hyde,
Julien Le Dem,
>> >>>>>>>>> Jacques
>> >>>>>>>>> Nadeau,
>> >>>>>>>>> James Taylor, Jake Luciani, Parth Chandra, Alex
Levenson, Marcel
>> >>>>>>>>> Kornacker,
>> >>>>>>>>> Steven Phillips, Hanifi Gunes, Wes McKinney,
Jason Altekruse,
>> >>>>>>>>> David
>> >>>>>>>>> Alves,
>> >>>>>>>>> Zain Asgar, Ippokratis Pandis, Abdel Hakim Deneche,
Reynold Xin.
>> >>>>>>>>> [2]
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0
>> >>> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>> Alex Levenson
>> >>>>>>>> @THISWILLWORK
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Julien
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

Mime
View raw message