logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1
Date Wed, 08 Mar 2017 12:32:57 GMT
I won't be able to do it. :-) Why don't you give it a shot? I suspect you will be driving future
changes often so it would be good if you can release such changes without having to wait for
others to make time. 

Remko 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 8, 2017, at 18:45, Mikael Ståldal <mikael.staldal@magine.com> wrote:
> 
> OK, I have updated the log4j-scala repo to bump version to 11.0, and note in README about
independent versioning. It should now be ready for release. Who will do the release?
> 
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> Yes. Scala should be released asap and the site manually modified to point to it.
We would then modify the log4j source to permanently point there.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Mar 7, 2017, at 10:09 AM, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Ralph pointed out that we can't make a release of the main repo without the scala
modules until there is a release of the scala modules on their own. Otherwise, there'd be
a regression in the main repo by removing modules that were there before.
>>> 
>>> On 7 March 2017 at 10:54, Remko Popma <remko.popma@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> No objection from me to release log4j-scala. 
>>>> 
>>>> Do you have a versioning scheme that lets log4j-scala and log4j upgrade independently?
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> 
>>>>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 1:42, Mikael Ståldal <mikael.staldal@magine.com>
wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Can we release log4j-scala now? Or to we have to wait for the next release
of main repo with Scala modules removed? Should we remove the Scala modules from main repo
now?
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>> The Scala language versions is already done the same standard way
everyone implements Scala libraries (hence the strange naming scheme we already have). I'd
imagine that the versions can be completely decoupled by specifying a minimum Log4j API version
it requires (though should generally be whatever the latest was at release) and bumping its
own version as new features or bugfixes are added. I'd like to see that follow semantic versioning
properly, too.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 3 March 2017 at 06:15, Mikael Ståldal <mikael.staldal@magine.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>> I guess the idea is that releases of Log4j 2 and log4j-scala
should be independent in both ways, right?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think I have coordination between log4j-scala and Scala language
covered already.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Remko Popma <remko.popma@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mikael, you probably need to plan your versioning scheme
to handle any combination of the following:
>>>>>>>> * log4j 2 releases: do you want to do a release for the log4j-scala
modules every time? E.g., when we go from 2.8.1 to 2.8.2? My understanding is that once they
are decoupled, the log4j-scala modules won't be released automatically with log4j anymore,
someone needs to do the work for a log4j-scala release separately. 
>>>>>>>> * Scala releases: how do you want to sync up with Scala language
versions? (I guess include major&minor Scala version in the log4j-scala module version)
>>>>>>>> * log4j-scala module versions: enhancements to these modules,
independent of the above 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 3, 2017, at 9:10, Mikael Ståldal <mikael.staldal@magine.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I would like to keep package and artifact names, and
bump version to 11.0.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2017 4:04 PM, "Matt Sicker" <boards@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> If you change artifact ids, it's generally a good
idea to change packages, too. I've had issues in the past with Feign for instance because
they changed groupId/artifactId at one point but kept the same API, so I had two copies on
the classpath until I found out there was a duplicate and excluded them (though admittedly
not a problem in OSGi environments :P).
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1 March 2017 at 07:47, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> You can do that, but that will probably confuse
users too. I would suggest changing the artifactId and then start at either 1.0 or 2.0.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2017, at 6:09 AM, Mikael Ståldal
<mikael.staldal@magine.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, but then at least we have to start with
a version > 2.8.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Apache <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guarantee if you try to keep the same
versioning you will regret it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:22 AM, Mikael
Ståldal <mikael.staldal@magine.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was under the impression that we
were not ready to integrate the site from log4j-scala. That's why I considered the release
of log4j-scala as delayed, since there is no point of releasing it if we cannot get the site
integrated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But now when Ralph says he's ready
to integrate the site, I guess we can go ahead and release log4j-scala.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't like the idea of having separate
versioning for log4j-scala, that will be confusing since we have already started with the
same versioning as Log4j. Log4j-scala also have a dependency on log4j-api, and I think we
want to keep that in sync.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:08
PM, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One issue we came across in practice
is that Scala 2.12 requires Java 8, but we don't want to require that for the entire build,
so we separated the repo. This also helps avoid making the main log4j repo from taking forever
to build and release which can help the RERO idea. Plus, these non-core modules don't change
nearly as often as log4j-core or log4j-api, so they don't really need new releases all that
often.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28 February 2017 at 01:44,
Remko Popma <remko.popma@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be honest I still don't
understand 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the vision of what we ultimately
want to achieve 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * how different repos fit
into that vision 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * what different websites
we are planning to create to give users access to these different modules 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * what websites are going
to be driven from which modules or projects 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * who of us is going to be
driving what aspect of the above 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My lack of understanding
is not just limited to the Scala modules but is about the whole splitting up the release.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps a diagram would help
clarify my understanding. (I think there's already a JIRA or an epic for the above. Adding
some diagrams there would be very useful.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remko
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017
at 2:26 Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd be in favour of starting
a new release train for the Log4j Scala APIs. Not exactly sure which version to start from,
though.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 27 February 2017 at
18:35, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you use that excuse
they will never get released as it creates a catch-22.  If I release without them then we
have a regression until they are released.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is why you shouldn’t
really be releasing them using the Log4j versions. Change the artifactIds so they can start
at 1.0, 2.0 or whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once you create the release
and deploy it to the web site I can modify the web site to point to it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2017,
at 5:19 PM, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, you included
2.10 and 2.11 in 2.8.1-rc1 which kind of makes it harder to release from the log4j-scala repo
when two of the three artifacts will already exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 27 February 2017
at 12:14, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is the release
of log4j-scala delayed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2017,
at 10:23 AM, Mikael Ståldal <mikael.staldal@magine.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would really
like LOG4J2-1661 and LOG4J2-1690 out in the next release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I implemented
LOG4J2-1690 only in the new log4j-scala repo since I thought that it would be released as
part of 2.8, otherwise I would have put it to the main repo as well. But now releasing of
the log4j-scala repo has been delayed and I start to get disappointed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 25,
2017 at 8:32 AM, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Relative symlinks
would work for that regardless of version. Option 1 it is, then?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 February
2017 at 00:22, Apache <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that the
link in the log4j site can reference a symlink so that the log4j site never has to change
when the Scala site is updated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 24,
2017, at 11:21 PM, Apache <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Option 2
makes no sense to me.  I don’t plan on being the release manager for log4j-scala. In order
for me to implement option 2 I would have to include the log4j-scala site into the log4j release
process - as well as log4j-examples, etc if they move out. That is just not doable. Deploying
the Scala site parallel to log4j makes it much easier to maintain independently of log4j.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb
24, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The site
repository is laid out like this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> log4j/2.x/
-(symlink)-> log4j-2.8/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> log4j/log4j-2.8/log4j-api/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> log4j/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Option
1 is to put it here instead:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> log4j/scala/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/
(or some variant; that's a pretty ugly URL honestly)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> log4j/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/
-(symlink)-> above directory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Option
2 is to commit the scala site where it is now, but you'd have to manage it alongside log4j
core releases. Option 1 still requires maintenance, too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25
February 2017 at 00:05, Apache <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There
is a specific location in svn where the site pages have to be committed, so I don’t really
understand option 1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On
Feb 24, 2017, at 9:48 PM, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
see two ways of doing that, though:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.
Commit the Scala site in a separate directory similar to what I started doing with Log4j Boot.
Add redirect pages or rewrite rules via .htaccess if possible to keep links from breaking.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.
Commit the Scala site where it would go when creating the main site. Depending on how you
update the files in svn for a site update, could this be more annoying to maintain?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On
24 February 2017 at 22:30, Apache <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From
my perspective that doesn’t matter. However, we would really need a Scala site before we
can modify the Log4j site, otherwise it will be a dead link.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All
that really needs to happen is the Scala site needs to be checked in adjacent to the Log4j
2 site. Then the Log4j 2 site just has a link to the Scala site from the main menu. The two
sites won’t really be “integrated” - they will just have links to each other.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Feb 24, 2017, at 5:02 PM, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is cosmetic, but we'd also be adding the Scala 2.12 module.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 24 February 2017 at 14:17, Apache <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don’t have the numbers but I have a couple of issues that need fixes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The modules stuff doesn’t require a major version bump. It is mostly cosmetic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ralph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Feb 24, 2017, at 12:41 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think we can do 2.8.1 with our current bug fixes. Moving modules around feels like a 2.9
item to me but that's just me. I really like the idea of making bug fixes available ASAP.
The only issue I see that fixing now is the null classloader issue for which we have a patch
but it does not work for me (see JIRA).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Gary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I'm hoping we can get this released soon as we have some bugfixes and such ready to go. I
also want to move forward with 2.9 changes but don't really want to deal with creating a 2.9
branch or forking master into a 2.8 branch. Let's go over anything left to do for 2.8.1:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
* Integrated log4j-api-scala website into main site
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
* Remove scala modules from logging-log4j2 repo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
* Release scala modules from logging-log4j-scala repo (presumably shortly after releasing
2.8.1 of core?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I also have ideas on what we can shoot for in 2.9 and beyond, but that's for another day.
I think getting everything working properly in Java 9 would be a good thing to start doing
soon so we can figure out if our APIs will still work properly in the future or if we need
to break backwards compatibility. Although, multi-jar support could help in migrating the
API if needed for 9+, though that would be a rather unorthodox abuse of the feature.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Spring Batch in Action 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt
Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt
Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mikael Ståldal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Senior software
developer 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Magine TV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mikael.staldal@magine.com
   
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Grev Turegatan
3  | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden  |   www.magine.com 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Privileged and/or
Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated
in this message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or responsible
for delivery of the message to such a person), you may not copy or deliver this message to
anyone. In such case, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you should destroy
this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email.   
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mikael Ståldal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Senior software developer 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Magine TV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mikael.staldal@magine.com    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Grev Turegatan 3  | 114 46 Stockholm,
Sweden  |   www.magine.com 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Privileged and/or Confidential Information
may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or responsible for delivery of the
message to such a person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you should destroy this message and
kindly notify the sender by reply email.   
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mikael Ståldal
>>>>>>>>>>>> Senior software developer 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Magine TV
>>>>>>>>>>>> mikael.staldal@magine.com    
>>>>>>>>>>>> Grev Turegatan 3  | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden
 |   www.magine.com 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Privileged and/or Confidential Information
may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message
>>>>>>>>>>>> (or responsible for delivery of the message
to such a person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, 
>>>>>>>>>>>> you should destroy this message and kindly
notify the sender by reply email.   
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Mikael Ståldal
>>>>>>> Senior software developer 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Magine TV
>>>>>>> mikael.staldal@magine.com    
>>>>>>> Grev Turegatan 3  | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden  |   www.magine.com

>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in
this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message
>>>>>>> (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person),
you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, 
>>>>>>> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender
by reply email.   
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mikael Ståldal
>>>>> Senior software developer 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Magine TV
>>>>> mikael.staldal@magine.com    
>>>>> Grev Turegatan 3  | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden  |   www.magine.com 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this message.
If you are not the addressee indicated in this message
>>>>> (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may
 not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, 
>>>>> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply
email.   
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>  
> 
> Mikael Ståldal
> Senior software developer 
> 
> Magine TV
> mikael.staldal@magine.com    
> Grev Turegatan 3  | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden  |   www.magine.com             
> 
> Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are
not the addressee indicated in this message
> (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may not copy or deliver
this message to anyone. In such case, 
> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email.   

Mime
View raw message