From dev-return-1937-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@mxnet.incubator.apache.org Tue Jan 16 01:41:20 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@eu.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@eu.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3624180657 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 01:41:20 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 93A74160C45; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:41:20 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 6337D160C31 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 01:41:19 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 82730 invoked by uid 500); 16 Jan 2018 00:41:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@mxnet.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 82718 invoked by uid 99); 16 Jan 2018 00:41:18 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:41:18 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id AED961807E5 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:41:17 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.88 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.88 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd3-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bd2XyumwYSWd for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:41:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yb0-f174.google.com (mail-yb0-f174.google.com [209.85.213.174]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTPS id E203A5FDC3 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:41:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yb0-f174.google.com with SMTP id 65so6517717ybz.6 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 16:41:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=MGWpLPmSSC25LHJuJU7KX2uBpNb6q8+vUGtUnWqlXuc=; b=CRMwouKpHPWlKxsDLEne5E5+ydn+JiDwgOws5MdsR4oYgHxWi2OOVmbKgjhzfa1h67 27EAWR2B5QlnDQFH+sImMQuqdKey6NWzq+CViMSSuld511j6aPpcfTlzNXbMyApdYSZx lpes8LDxSB9AowDoX9H4Yc/iiY00i9hx4LUznTytVX5uwtKRn2q32djyEOVy+AJTGoJn 73CpAZNgCmsoq4HBHvKP5294JPW+r1GkuZswwZN1+FMDItiqZpJ35AYg0/Xxk3lUGv+R r1bVCeWZrTD3LffS2gFgzhsr/MMNB65Gvh9xlCFT0TVuVLaqPxiJ68HPTe6OzUFzZd7u JsfA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=MGWpLPmSSC25LHJuJU7KX2uBpNb6q8+vUGtUnWqlXuc=; b=dkdR2osqbGhNIVq2476QJg6NmInNo9VKwlc/ClmUUD+3lDmYuXkjmP8z/4XzBoSl4y BLLkjf2RiX/isjnzKTgsnaoPjF7bA0IPIb2S/T03/cJsAX3MJYSh/ybWEZdKVxUiCg5+ G7eVpjqaTDxjmNE9KFuz+DVMgxBChCYrxWjyYxyfDJDKeviIf42qTd3F86x782s8F1B/ EMg3Uu+miBjkf8oqEGKCFBNSAq34VaBOYXH9WbiGB9j4v8aoAOkJaUUg1hBmtKQbYorM 0YQTWR7/3UmpGCphFO74DAqTTrl36z+uRpi8KMO6oiUOIwxUsl0MK7zPwQv3B3LmudyB 2IbA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mL9kmS2ay8OBoqsMBixrQ6bqYeI36t0LKGco+4vaVHG1iwyjOQe ZJ2A3zFX4qMlKVV38zn1FjslTt6oMGbRwZ01mkU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovlZ/L0Wx2S5chjT6BSaC1lYaeQZqJ1lSM2fbQC0qbDu87eEE3umiD/Suwwob03OIqEO/EHNfGH2zOQk7+ZpNA= X-Received: by 10.37.5.86 with SMTP id 83mr29015226ybf.322.1516063260090; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 16:41:00 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <98569D75-72AC-415C-A2CF-9077B9A1A5D9@apache.org> <1A19DC92-09D4-4BC4-A947-7F4D332F75C4@apache.org> In-Reply-To: From: Steffen Rochel Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:40:48 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Module maintainers proposal To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c01f001326c60562d9fcc8" --001a11c01f001326c60562d9fcc8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks for all the feedback! Proposed a simplified version in https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/9448 : # Owners of Apache MXNet # Please see documentation of use of CODEOWNERS file at # https://help.github.com/articles/about-codeowners/ and # https://github.com/blog/2392-introducing-code-owners # # Anybody can add themselves or a team as additional contributors # to get notified about changes in a specific package. # See https://help.github.com/articles/about-teams how to setup teams. # Global owners ... Hope we can adopt this approach. Regards, Steffen On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 1:26 PM Marco de Abreu wrote: > Very good points, Chris! +1 > > If the community does not want to support a specific part of MXNet but > there's a business interest, the company can assign somebody for this tas= k > and if this person is doing good work, they might be added as a committer > in the long-term, closing the loop. If there's no business- neither > user-interest in that part and nobody else in the community wants to take > care of it, it might as well get removed. > > -Marco > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 9:50 PM, Chris Olivier > wrote: > > > I'm not sure I understand the "orphaned package" thing. You mean that = no > > one is reviewing them? > > If a corporation wishes to assign a particular portion of the code to a= n > > employee to review regularly, then that can take care of any portions > > becoming "orphaned", but it can't mean "this person we assigned is now > the > > last word. > > > > If someone takes an interest in reviewing a particular part of the code= , > > then they'd tend to add themself to the "watch list" (this CODEOWNERS > > file), but I don't believe that this file should dictate how important > one > > committer's reviews are compared to another. You don't entice people = to > > review by telling them that their opinion is only worth half of person > > X's. Why would they even bother? Committers are made committers becau= se > > they are trusted to behave competently and not merge stuff they aren't > > comfortable with. > > > > People work hard to become committers, but then saying that "ok you're = a > > committer but really only these 5 people get to merge code unless you > jump > > through all of these hoops" isn't fair, IMHO, and won't help to build t= he > > community. > > > > In addition, so far the mentors seem to have discouraged this sort of > > "ownership" role. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 8:39 PM, Steffen Rochel > > > wrote: > > > > > Sandeep - > > > 1. Yes, but not only. Using maintainers the community will also know > who > > is > > > expert or point of contact for a specific package within the MXNet > repo. > > > 2. I suggested: By default the package maintainer should merge PR aft= er > > > appropriate review. A PR which received 2 +1 (or LGTM) comments can b= e > > > merged by any committer. > > > Of course, open to suggestion and I assume we all know when to apply > > common > > > sense for small changes. > > > As we are gaining more experience with a larger community we can deci= de > > if > > > it make sense to use required reviews by the CODEOWNERS (could be one > or > > > more per package), but I think this would be to restrictive at this > time. > > > > > > I liked the description from github > > > about the role > of > > a > > > maintainer: "... Regardless of what they do day-to-day, a maintainer = is > > > probably someone who feels responsibility over the direction of the > > project > > > and is committed to improving it. " I feel this does apply to the > various > > > packages/directories in MXNet to grow the community and project. > > > > > > Chris - can you please elaborate your concerns and suggest alternativ= e? > > How > > > can we ensure certain packages will not become orphans? I do see a > > > maintainer as somebody with detailed knowledge who cares about an are= a > > and > > > certainly not as dictator or king. > > > > > > Steffen > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 8:00 PM sandeep krishnamurthy < > > > sandeep.krishna98@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Just wanted to clarify my understanding. > > > > 1. We are going to use Github CODEOWNERS functionality as a feature > for > > > > getting notified. > > > > 2. This does not mean only CODEOWNERS approved code will be merged > for > > > > respective module. (We need to evolve community to self-sustain > without > > > > getting blocked on one poc) > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Sandeep > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 7:43 PM, sandeep krishnamurthy < > > > > sandeep.krishna98@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 (binding) for suggestion around framing CODEOWNERS functionali= ty > > as > > > > the > > > > > watchlist. > > > > > I also feel that we should enable and find/request more than 1 > person > > > per > > > > > module to help the project. > > > > > > > > > > But, still, if it is something like +1 or watch button for module= s > > > rather > > > > > than a new PR to follow a topic, it would have been great. > Something > > > for > > > > > future :-) > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Sandeep > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Steffen Rochel < > > > steffenrochel@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks Chris for the great reading suggestion > > > > >> ! > > > > >> > > > > >> I'm suggesting that we adopt Mu's proposal to use github code > owner > > > > >> mechanism to identify designated maintainer for each package. > > > > >> To address the concerns raised in this thread I proposed > > > > >> to add into the header of the CODEOWNERS file > > > > >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/9426 > > > > >> (changes below). > > > > >> > > > > >> Chris, Sebastian, Isabel - please suggest changes, but I hope I > > > > addressed > > > > >> your concerns. > > > > >> > > > > >> In the future we can also enable required reviews (see > > > > >> https://help.github.com/articles/about-pull-request-reviews/), > but > > I > > > > >> would > > > > >> suggest to make one change at a time. > > > > >> > > > > >> I do suggest we should explore how we can best adopt existing > github > > > > >> features before considering building additional CI tasks. > > > > >> > > > > >> Steffen > > > > >> > > > > >> # Please see documentation of use of CODEOWNERS file at > > > > >> # https://help.github.com/articles/about-codeowners/ and > > > > >> # https://github.com/blog/2392-introducing-code-owners > > > > >> # > > > > >> # The first owner listed for a package is considered the > maintainer > > > for > > > > a > > > > >> package. > > > > >> # Anybody can add themselves or a team (see > > > > >> https://help.github.com/articles/about-teams/) > > > > >> # as additional owners to get notified about changes in a specif= ic > > > > >> package. > > > > >> # > > > > >> # By default the package maintainer should merge PR after > > appropriate > > > > >> review. > > > > >> # A PR which received 2 +1 (or LGTM) comments can be merged by a= ny > > > > >> committer. > > > > >> # In the future we might consider adopting required reviews > > > > >> # (see > https://help.github.com/articles/about-pull-request-reviews/ > > ) > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 7:22 PM Bhavin Thaker < > > bhavinthaker@gmail.com > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > During the MXNet 1.0 release, there was feedback from the > mentors > > > and > > > > >> folks > > > > >> > in general@ to clarify at the top of the CODEOWNERs file on > what > > > the > > > > >> > contents of this file meant. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Hi Mu, > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Please add the description of the file in the file header. I > > expect > > > > that > > > > >> > this will be a requirement for the next MXNet release 1.0.1. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Thanks, > > > > >> > Bhavin Thaker. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 5:43 PM Chris Olivier < > > > cjolivier01@gmail.com> > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > i=E2=80=99d be +1 if CODEOWNERS file has a big note at the t= op saying > > > > >> basically > > > > >> > > it=E2=80=99s just for watching code changes that you=E2=80= =99d like to know > > about > > > > (to > > > > >> > > review or just to follow) and that anyone can add themself. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:58 PM Chris Olivier < > > > > cjolivier01@gmail.com> > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Does it have to be called "CODEOWNERS"? I would be more > > > > comfortable > > > > >> > with > > > > >> > > > it if it's a "watch list" where it just means you wish to > > watch > > > > code > > > > >> > here > > > > >> > > > or there in the source structure and anyone can add or > remove > > > > their > > > > >> > name > > > > >> > > > from watching some part of the code at any time. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Marco de Abreu < > > > > >> > > > marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> I agree. How about we find another way to allow people to > > > > subscribe > > > > >> > for > > > > >> > > >> changes in a specific file or directory? > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> -Marco > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> Am 12.01.2018 8:51 nachm. schrieb "Chris Olivier" < > > > > >> > > cjolivier01@gmail.com > > > > >> > > >> >: > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > Have you read "The Cathedral and the Bazaar"? > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > http://www.unterstein.net/su/docs/CathBaz.pdf > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > One of the points I took from this is that once a proje= ct > > > finds > > > > >> its > > > > >> > > >> stride, > > > > >> > > >> > it actually runs more efficiently without centralizatio= n > > than > > > > >> with. > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > -Chris > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Marco de Abreu < > > > > >> > > >> > marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > Hi Chris, > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > you have a good point about people being afraid of > > > reviewing > > > > >> PRs > > > > >> > > which > > > > >> > > >> > they > > > > >> > > >> > > are not assigned to and I totally agree that we shoul= d > > > > >> encourage > > > > >> > > >> > everybody > > > > >> > > >> > > to review PRs. > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > One important advantage I see in this is the > > notification: > > > > >> since > > > > >> > we > > > > >> > > >> are > > > > >> > > >> > not > > > > >> > > >> > > using the feature to required an approval, this step = is > > > > >> entirely > > > > >> > for > > > > >> > > >> > > information purpose. I, for example, would like to ge= t > > > > notified > > > > >> > if a > > > > >> > > >> PR > > > > >> > > >> > to > > > > >> > > >> > > change a CI file would be created. Just as an example= : > > over > > > > >> > > >> Christmas, a > > > > >> > > >> > PR > > > > >> > > >> > > to update mkl has been pushed without me knowing abou= t > > it. > > > > >> > Somehow, > > > > >> > > >> after > > > > >> > > >> > > my vacation, we started to get issues with mkl test -= I > > > only > > > > >> found > > > > >> > > out > > > > >> > > >> > > about this PR after quite a long investigation. If we > > would > > > > >> extend > > > > >> > > the > > > > >> > > >> > > usage of the code maintainers, we'll make sure that > > changes > > > > >> like > > > > >> > > these > > > > >> > > >> > will > > > > >> > > >> > > notify the people who have the best knowledge about > that > > > > part. > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > Marco > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > Am 12.01.2018 8:03 nachm. schrieb "Chris Olivier" < > > > > >> > > >> cjolivier01@gmail.com > > > > >> > > >> > >: > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > -1 (binding) > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > I totally understand the motivation for this (I've > > > > definitely > > > > >> > > saved > > > > >> > > >> > > myself > > > > >> > > >> > > > some grief by getting called out automatically for > > > > >> > CMakeLists.txt > > > > >> > > >> > stuff, > > > > >> > > >> > > > for example), but I respectfully decline for the > > > following > > > > >> > > >> reason(s): > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > I feel that defining code-owners has some negative > > > effects. > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > Other committers may be reluctant to start reviewin= g > > and > > > > >> > approving > > > > >> > > >> PRs > > > > >> > > >> > > > since they aren't the one listed, so I feel this wi= ll > > in > > > > the > > > > >> > > >> long-run > > > > >> > > >> > > > reduce the number of people doing code reviews. > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > If there aren't enough people doing PR's, then peop= le > > can > > > > >> > complain > > > > >> > > >> on > > > > >> > > >> > > dev@ > > > > >> > > >> > > > asking for review. > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > -Chris > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Haibin Lin < > > > > >> haibin@apache.org > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > wrote: > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > On 2018-01-12 10:10, kellen sunderland < > > > > >> > > >> kellen.sunderland@gmail.com> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > On Jan 12, 2018 6:32 PM, "Steffen Rochel" < > > > > >> > > >> steffenrochel@gmail.com > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > I propose to adopt the proposal. > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Steffen > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 8:39 PM Mu Li < > > > > >> muli.cmu@gmail.com > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > wrote: > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Isabel, > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > My apologies that not saying that clearly. > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > The purpose of this proposal is encouraging > > more > > > > >> > > >> contributors > > > > >> > > >> > to > > > > >> > > >> > > > help > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > review and merge PRs. And also hope to > shorten > > > the > > > > >> time > > > > >> > > for > > > > >> > > >> a > > > > >> > > >> > PR > > > > >> > > >> > > to > > > > >> > > >> > > > > be > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > merged. After assigning maintainers to > modules, > > > > then > > > > >> PR > > > > >> > > >> > > > contributors > > > > >> > > >> > > > > can > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > easily contact the reviewers. In other word= s, > > > > github > > > > >> > will > > > > >> > > >> > > > > automatically > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > assign the PR to the maintainer and send a > > > > >> notification > > > > >> > > >> email. > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > I don't think I put the term "inbox" in my > > > > proposal. > > > > >> I > > > > >> > > never > > > > >> > > >> > > > > discussed > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > PRs > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > with other contributors by sending email > > > directly, > > > > >> which > > > > >> > > is > > > > >> > > >> > less > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > effective > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > than just using github. I also don't aware > any > > > > other > > > > >> > > >> > contributor > > > > >> > > >> > > > use > > > > >> > > >> > > > > the > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > direct email way. So I didn't clarify it on > the > > > > >> > proposal. > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Isabel > > > > Drost-Fromm < > > > > >> > > >> > > > > isabel@apache.org> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > Am 9. Januar 2018 18:25:50 MEZ schrieb Mu > Li > > < > > > > >> > > >> > > muli.cmu@gmail.com > > > > >> > > >> > > > >: > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >We should encourage to contract a specif= ic > > > > >> > contributor > > > > >> > > >> for > > > > >> > > >> > > > issues > > > > >> > > >> > > > > and > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >PRs. > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > My head translates "encourage to contact > > > specific > > > > >> > > >> > contributor" > > > > >> > > >> > > > into > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > "encourage to contact specific contributo= rs > > > > inbox". > > > > >> > This > > > > >> > > >> > > > translated > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > version > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > is what I would highly discourage. > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > See the disclaimer here for reasons behin= d > > > that: > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > https://home.apache.org/~hossman/#private_q > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > Isabel > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem > > Android-Ger=C3=A4t > > > > mit > > > > >> K-9 > > > > >> > > >> Mail > > > > >> > > >> > > > > gesendet. > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Sandeep Krishnamurthy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Sandeep Krishnamurthy > > > > > > > > > > --001a11c01f001326c60562d9fcc8--