royale-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Release Philosophy (was Re: [Website] Getting content ready to publish)
Date Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:13:53 GMT
Hi Piotr,

I removed that part, please, check.
As well I sent you private for access info

thanks

2017-11-13 13:21 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:

> That's what I think so.
>
> I was trying to also login into account, but when I'm going to admin page
> it doesn't ask me for a new password, but rather redirect me to the login
> page. I tried to reset password, but it didn't help.
>
> Piotr
>
>
> 2017-11-13 13:11 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <carlos.rovira@codeoscopic.com>:
>
> > Hi Piotr,
> >
> > I'm fine with the decisions you would like to take regarding that links.
> I
> > just setup an initial layout.
> >
> > So, if I understand well I must to remove only the status link?
> >
> >
> >
> > 2017-11-13 12:42 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Carlos,
> > >
> > > I'm not convinced that we should move framework build from Alex's Azure
> > PC.
> > > It is really convenient if something went wrong to just connect with
> the
> > > PC. If you would like to have distribution build under Apache umbrella
> > you
> > > will need to fight with Infra about that. Maven is building on Apache
> > > servers, Chris handle that. I would rather not invest the time in that
> > > since we have working everything on Alex PC, but that's just mine
> > > convenient and save time view. :)
> > >
> > > Piotr
> > >
> > >
> > > 2017-11-13 12:36 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <carlosrovira@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > Hi Piotr,
> > > >
> > > > ok, as we are still in preview site, not published, I think is better
> > to
> > > > wait for the final link.
> > > > One thing is confusing me is that status link is more legit (
> > > > builds.apache.org) than the nightly links (
> > apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net)
> > > >
> > > > I think in a final stage we should not have "apacheflexbuild" right?
> > > > But status seems ok to me at first sight
> > > >
> > > > thanks
> > > >
> > > > 2017-11-12 20:04 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com
> >:
> > > >
> > > > > Another thing is: "Apache Royale Jenkings Job Status" - This status
> > > > showing
> > > > > the state of Maven build which is hosted on builds.apache.org.
> Since
> > > we
> > > > > are
> > > > > using Alex's machine for producing ditribution package for
> developers
> > > we
> > > > > should not have it this link on the website.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maven is able to build distribution package, but so far it's
> missing
> > > some
> > > > > things and you can use that package only for code completion
> purposes
> > > in
> > > > > your IDE either Moonshine or VSCode. If I find resources I hope I
> > will
> > > > fix
> > > > > it and we can then linking to Maven build.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks Carslo for that website! :)
> > > > > Piotr
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2017-11-12 18:42 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki <
> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Carlos,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here you go links to Royale. I see proper names. Royale [1]
JS
> Only
> > > > [2].
> > > > > I
> > > > > > did just quick look and when I came to the website I started
to
> > > search
> > > > > this
> > > > > > information that Nightly is not for production. After w while
I
> > have
> > > > > found
> > > > > > this red rectangle. I think font size could be a bit bigger
> there.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/royale-
> > > > > > asjs/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/out/
> > > > > > [2] http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/royale-
> > asjs-jsonly/
> > > > > > lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/out/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Piotr
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2017-11-12 18:30 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <
> carlosrovira@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Hi,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> here's the download page for you to review.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> http://royale.codeoscopic.com/download/
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Some things to mention:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> * As we already don't have release binaries, the first section
> > could
> > > > be
> > > > > >> consider under construction
> > > > > >> * For nightly builds I use the links posted by Alex in October.
> I
> > > > think
> > > > > >> those links are somewhat temporal since are labeled in "FlexJS"
> > > > instead
> > > > > of
> > > > > >> "RoyaleJS" or something and he mentions the to rename in
the
> > future.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> You can check if links are the expected, or we need to put
> > something
> > > > > more.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Take into account that the info is what I found navigating
> through
> > > the
> > > > > >> mailing list and since I'm not a user of that links, although
we
> > > will
> > > > > need
> > > > > >> to update as we get final names, they can be wrong links
at this
> > > time.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Hope you guys could let me know what is right and wrong
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thanks
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Carlos
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 2017-11-11 11:35 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <
> carlosrovira@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Hi Alex,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > as in lots of things in life I think we should get
to some
> point
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > middle. I think it would be bad if we try to make lots
of
> > > components
> > > > > in
> > > > > >> few
> > > > > >> > time, since as you said, we don't know what things
people will
> > > need
> > > > > >> > nowadays. I like your point about "we don't need to
mimic Flex
> > > 4.x",
> > > > > for
> > > > > >> > example, a cool Date component should work seamlessly
in
> mobile
> > > and
> > > > > >> > desktop, so better to create a royale one than try
to get
> Flex 4
> > > > > >> > DateChooser and DateSpinner, since we have in flex
both due to
> > the
> > > > way
> > > > > >> Flex
> > > > > >> > was evolving through the years. They worked great for
the web
> > and
> > > > > >> desktop,
> > > > > >> > but suddenly a new mobile world emerge and they must
respect
> the
> > > old
> > > > > >> way to
> > > > > >> > do things.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > In the other hand, I think it would be very bad for
us to left
> > > > things
> > > > > >> > completely to users demand. We know right now that
some
> > components
> > > > are
> > > > > >> > needed and we can propose others as well.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I think I'll better create a new thread since I think
this one
> > was
> > > > > more
> > > > > >> > about releases and nightly builds so we can stay on
focus
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Thanks
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > 2017-11-11 8:04 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> > >:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> Well, I would love to be wrong about "few years",
but I know
> I
> > > > > wouldn't
> > > > > >> >> bet any money on knowing what components and features
our
> users
> > > who
> > > > > are
> > > > > >> >> migrating from Flex are going to need.  And I would
hope we
> > don't
> > > > > have
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> >> say to any users "well, we don't have that component/feature
> so
> > > too
> > > > > >> bad",
> > > > > >> >> unless it is a really extensive and expensive component
that
> we
> > > > don't
> > > > > >> have
> > > > > >> >> the committer-power to reproduce.   Maybe we do
have the
> > ability
> > > to
> > > > > >> gather
> > > > > >> >> that list of components/features up front, but
I am expecting
> > > that
> > > > we
> > > > > >> are
> > > > > >> >> going to have to be demand-driven.  Whoever signs
up to
> migrate
> > > to
> > > > > >> Royale
> > > > > >> >> will have my priority just like Harbs and Yishay
did.  I did
> > not
> > > > ask
> > > > > >> them
> > > > > >> >> to commit up front to what they needed, they started
> migrating
> > > and
> > > > > >> asked
> > > > > >> >> for stuff and we made it happen.  I expect it to
be like that
> > for
> > > > at
> > > > > >> least
> > > > > >> >> a few years, and we need to be able to make releases
quickly
> in
> > > > order
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> >> respond to those users.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> I'm hopeful that as we gain users, we will also
have more
> > > automated
> > > > > >> tests
> > > > > >> >> and that's how we are going to try to prevent breaking
> people's
> > > > apps,
> > > > > >> but
> > > > > >> >> I think we will be spending at least a few years
bringing new
> > > > > >> components
> > > > > >> >> and features to Royale and need to get that stuff
out to
> users
> > as
> > > > > >> quickly
> > > > > >> >> as possible.  If you think about the number of
person-hours
> > > > invested
> > > > > in
> > > > > >> >> the writing and testing and documenting of Apache
Flex and
> its
> > > > third
> > > > > >> party
> > > > > >> >> components, and compare that to the time Peter
and I have
> spent
> > > on
> > > > > >> Royale
> > > > > >> >> (subtract out what we've spent on Flex and non-FlexJS
work)
> > plus
> > > > > Harbs
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> >> Yishay (subtract out the time they spent on their
actual app)
> > and
> > > > > >> others
> > > > > >> >> like Om, Erik, Carlos and Piotr, it looks to me
that there is
> > > still
> > > > > >> plenty
> > > > > >> >> of work to be done, and the only way to decide
what order to
> do
> > > > > things
> > > > > >> is
> > > > > >> >> to do what users ask us for.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> I know you want a clear list of controls/components
for a
> > theme,
> > > > but
> > > > > I
> > > > > >> >> don't know how we will decide other than, say,
taking the
> ones
> > > > > actually
> > > > > >> >> used by Harbs and adding any other component wanted
by the
> next
> > > > folks
> > > > > >> that
> > > > > >> >> sign up for migration.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> My philosophy is to not set expectations too high
(that
> Royale
> > > will
> > > > > be
> > > > > >> >> like Flex 4.x) and failing to meet those expectations.
 If we
> > > make
> > > > a
> > > > > >> lot
> > > > > >> >> of noise soon, what kinds of people will that bring,
and what
> > > will
> > > > > make
> > > > > >> >> them stay?  If we can attract more pioneers like
our current
> > > > > committers
> > > > > >> >> who are willing to help blaze the trail, great,
let's go get
> > > them.
> > > > > If
> > > > > >> it
> > > > > >> >> is going to bring in folks who are expecting Royale
to be
> like
> > > > Flex,
> > > > > >> I'm
> > > > > >> >> not sure we are there yet.  I think this latter
group is
> going
> > to
> > > > > want
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> >> know about success stories from other people, so
IMO, the
> most
> > > > > >> important
> > > > > >> >> thing is that we need to make a few more users
successful in
> > > their
> > > > > >> >> migration.  But those next users are going to have
to be
> > willing
> > > to
> > > > > >> put up
> > > > > >> >> with bugs and missing features, so we need to set
their
> > > > expectations
> > > > > >> >> appropriately.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> My 2 cents,
> > > > > >> >> -Alex
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> On 11/10/17, 11:47 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com
on behalf of
> > > > Carlos
> > > > > >> >> Rovira" <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of
> > > > > carlosrovira@apache.org>
> > > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >Hi,
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >I agree with this, but want to expose some
thoughts that I
> > > > consider
> > > > > >> >> >important:
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >I think we must to cut a release as we get
in the same
> similar
> > > > > stable
> > > > > >> >> >state
> > > > > >> >> >as we had in FlexJS (0.8.0), and call it 0.8.0,
since this
> is
> > > > only a
> > > > > >> >> >transition release to get in our new house,
but we still
> have
> > > some
> > > > > >> >> missing
> > > > > >> >> >key pieces to get 0.9.0 and 1.0
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >I suppose a Alex talks about "some years" but
I don't think
> > so.
> > > If
> > > > > we
> > > > > >> do
> > > > > >> >> >0.9 and 1.0 in the right way, I expect to make
huge noise on
> > the
> > > > > >> internet
> > > > > >> >> >talking about Apache Royale and making lots
of people put an
> > eye
> > > > on
> > > > > >> us.
> > > > > >> >> >This must be at proper time to get people reaching
to us not
> > > leave
> > > > > >> easily
> > > > > >> >> >and take us seriously as a real alternative.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >How many time to get this? I hope more soon
than later.
> Maybe
> > 1T
> > > > > 2018?
> > > > > >> >> 2T?
> > > > > >> >> >People coming at that time will start to use
Royale and we
> > will
> > > > need
> > > > > >> some
> > > > > >> >> >coherence all around.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >That's crucial and that will make us not easy
to make
> certain
> > > > > changes
> > > > > >> >> that
> > > > > >> >> >could make user developments not valid.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >So, for example, We still does not have a clear
list of
> > starter
> > > UI
> > > > > >> >> >components and controls. I think we will need
to discuss
> that
> > > and
> > > > > work
> > > > > >> >> for
> > > > > >> >> >it so people could rely on some quality components
(I think
> I
> > > will
> > > > > >> create
> > > > > >> >> >a
> > > > > >> >> >thread about this concrete part since I think
is crucial for
> > > us).
> > > > We
> > > > > >> will
> > > > > >> >> >need to have certain parts of Royale very robust
and defined
> > so
> > > > > people
> > > > > >> >> >could come and expect and easy relation with
that parts and
> > > avoid
> > > > to
> > > > > >> left
> > > > > >> >> >because they think we "many things" but as
well "many of
> that
> > > > things
> > > > > >> are
> > > > > >> >> >not finished" in a quality level similar to
the quality
> level
> > > > > reached
> > > > > >> on
> > > > > >> >> >apache flex.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >So, going back. We need to cut a release as
soon as we can
> to
> > > get
> > > > a
> > > > > >> valid
> > > > > >> >> >starter point, we need to release the new website
with
> quality
> > > > > content
> > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > >> >> >what we could have soon (if we have royale
on NPM, that's
> > good!,
> > > > and
> > > > > >> so
> > > > > >> >> >on....), we can put a download page with releases
and talk
> > about
> > > > > ways
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> >> >people to get nightly builds, but we must think
in the
> people
> > > that
> > > > > >> will
> > > > > >> >> >come to us and what they expect to see;
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >For me: something clear, as easy as possible
info in
> website,
> > an
> > > > sdk
> > > > > >> with
> > > > > >> >> >proven valid ways to make apps and a concrete
set of UI
> > controls
> > > > and
> > > > > >> >> >components that works really well to start
building the same
> > day
> > > > > they
> > > > > >> >> know
> > > > > >> >> >about Apache Royale.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >2017-11-10 20:12 GMT+01:00 Dave Fisher <
> dave2wave@comcast.net
> > >:
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> Hi -
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> I agree it is intent and trust. A couple
of incidents in
> the
> > > > long
> > > > > >> >> >>history
> > > > > >> >> >> of POI.
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> (1) we discovered a GPL file that had
been in the source
> > tree
> > > > for
> > > > > a
> > > > > >> >> >>couple
> > > > > >> >> >> of releases and removed it.
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> (2) we had a complaint from the copyright
holder that a
> test
> > > > file
> > > > > >> >> >>belonged
> > > > > >> >> >> to him. It had been there for many years.
We removed it
> from
> > > the
> > > > > >> next
> > > > > >> >> >> release.
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> Anyone concerned with nit picking this
should be watching
> > > every
> > > > > >> commit.
> > > > > >> >> >>In
> > > > > >> >> >> the Incubator a mentor will bring it up
then and most
> often
> > > say
> > > > > next
> > > > > >> >> >>time.
> > > > > >> >> >> Here in a project we deal as they come
and it should be on
> > the
> > > > > >> commit.
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> If someone brings in a significant amount
of code then a
> SGA
> > > may
> > > > > be
> > > > > >> >> >>needed
> > > > > >> >> >> along with IP Clearance in the Incubator.
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> Regards,
> > > > > >> >> >> Dave
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> > On Nov 10, 2017, at 11:02 AM, Alex
Harui
> > > > > <aharui@adobe.com.INVALID
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> > Hi Dave,
> > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> > It would help to make license problems
rare if we also
> do
> > > > > >> something
> > > > > >> >> >>else
> > > > > >> >> >> > Roy has mentioned recently that has
to do with trust and
> > > > intent.
> > > > > >> If
> > > > > >> >> >>you
> > > > > >> >> >> > dig hard enough, or take an "untrusting"
philosophy that
> > if
> > > > > >> something
> > > > > >> >> >> > isn't perfectly documented that someone
is going to use
> > that
> > > > > >> >> >>imperfection
> > > > > >> >> >> > against you or the foundation, you
can continue to find
> > > small
> > > > > >> >> >>licensing
> > > > > >> >> >> > issues, especially in the third party
artifacts we
> > consume.
> > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> > Roy basically said that folks want
us to use the stuff
> the
> > > > make
> > > > > >> >> >>available
> > > > > >> >> >> > on open source sites otherwise they
wouldn't have put it
> > > > there.
> > > > > >> They
> > > > > >> >> >> > might have slightly different rules
about sharing it and
> > > > > >> >> >>modifications to
> > > > > >> >> >> > it, but the intent is to share it.
> > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> > So let me add to "better and not
illegal" with "trust".
> > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> > Thanks,
> > > > > >> >> >> > -Alex
> > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> >> On 11/10/17, 10:47 AM, "Dave
Fisher" <
> > > dave2wave@comcast.net>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> >> Hi -
> > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> >> For source code we can point
to github from the
> website.
> > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> >> For nightly builds we can let
people know about it on
> > dev@
> > > > but
> > > > > >> >> should
> > > > > >> >> >> not
> > > > > >> >> >> >> link to it from the website.
We can explain on the
> > website
> > > or
> > > > > >> wiki
> > > > > >> >> >>that
> > > > > >> >> >> >> we are doing nightly builds and
that they can find out
> > from
> > > > the
> > > > > >> dev@
> > > > > >> >> >> list.
> > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> >> At this point it should be rare
to have a license
> problem
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> >> >> repository because we all should
know the rules or how
> to
> > > ask
> > > > > on
> > > > > >> >> dev@
> > > > > >> >> >> or
> > > > > >> >> >> >> private@ first.
> > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> >> Clear?
> > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> >> Regards,
> > > > > >> >> >> >> Dave
> > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone
> > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> >>> On Nov 10, 2017, at 10:36
AM, Alex Harui
> > > > > >> <aharui@adobe.com.INVALID
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> >>> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>
> > > > > >> >> >> >>> Forking this specific issue
about nightly builds...
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>
> > > > > >> >> >> >>> AIUI, this issue about nightly
builds has arisen
> before
> > > with
> > > > > >> other
> > > > > >> >> >> >>> projects.  I'd have to go
through board@/member@
> > archives
> > > > > but I
> > > > > >> >> >>think
> > > > > >> >> >> >>> some
> > > > > >> >> >> >>> projects have found some
pretty clever solutions to
> > > linking
> > > > to
> > > > > >> >> >>nightly
> > > > > >> >> >> >>> builds.
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>
> > > > > >> >> >> >>> That said, one of the benefits
of creating a Royale
> > > project
> > > > > >> >> separate
> > > > > >> >> >> >>> from
> > > > > >> >> >> >>> Flex is that there should
not be any 'competition' in
> > the
> > > > > >> release
> > > > > >> >> >> queue.
> > > > > >> >> >> >>> For example, the Flex project
is currently trying to
> get
> > > two
> > > > > >> >> >>releases
> > > > > >> >> >> >>> out,
> > > > > >> >> >> >>> and if some other Flex member
wanted to rush out a
> > BlazeDS
> > > > > >> release,
> > > > > >> >> >> >>> they'd
> > > > > >> >> >> >>> probably have to wait.
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>
> > > > > >> >> >> >>> Royale has 3 main repos,
and under FlexJS/Falcon, we
> > > > created 2
> > > > > >> sets
> > > > > >> >> >>of
> > > > > >> >> >> >>> release artifacts.  Royale
might still have 2 sets of
> > > > release
> > > > > >> >> >>artifacts
> > > > > >> >> >> >>> (
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >--
> > > > > >> >> >Carlos Rovira
> > > > > >> >> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%
> > > > > >> >> 2F%2Fabout.me%2
> > > > > >> >> >Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7C%7C4ddfd5d3bb8e44f9b4c508d5287
> > > > > >> >> 3f24b%7Cfa7b1b5
> > > > > >> >> >a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636459400811686261&sdat
> > > > > >> >> a=AONFxld%2FTJz
> > > > > >> >> >zDM%2Frjf0g6L8PfwqlpJHkF9RVZII1TWo%3D&reserved=0
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > --
> > > > > >> > Carlos Rovira
> > > > > >> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> Carlos Rovira
> > > > > >> http://about.me/carlosrovira
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Piotr Zarzycki
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > > > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Piotr Zarzycki
> > > > >
> > > > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Carlos Rovira
> > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Piotr Zarzycki
> > >
> > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > <http://www.codeoscopic.com>
> >
> > Carlos Rovira
> >
> > Director General
> >
> > M: +34 607 22 60 05
> >
> > http://www.codeoscopic.com
> >
> >
> > Conócenos en 1 minuto! <https://avant2.es/#video>
> >
> >
> > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener
> > información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este mensaje por
> > error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía
> y
> > proceda a su destrucción.
> >
> > De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999), le
> comunicamos
> > que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable es CODEOSCOPIC
> > S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la prestación del
> > servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted derecho de acceso,
> > rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos dirigiéndose a
> nuestras
> > oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la documentación
> > necesaria.
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>



-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

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