Hello,

Currently we do this in CHANGES.txt:

LUCENE-XXXX:
  Fixed a horrible nasty bug. (Joe Contributor via John Doe Committer)

I propose we remove "via <committers name>" from CHANGES.txt. I don't
think any users care about who committed changes and I think it
de-emphasizes the actual contributor. If we need to know who committed
something we can find this in SVN logs or on the jira issue.

Opinions?

--
lucidimagination.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

+1

Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Robert Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Currently we do this in CHANGES.txt:
>
> LUCENE-XXXX:
>  Fixed a horrible nasty bug. (Joe Contributor via John Doe Committer)
>
> I propose we remove "via <committers name>" from CHANGES.txt. I don't
> think any users care about who committed changes and I think it
> de-emphasizes the actual contributor. If we need to know who committed
> something we can find this in SVN logs or on the jira issue.
>
> Opinions?
>
> --
> lucidimagination.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

: LUCENE-XXXX:
:   Fixed a horrible nasty bug. (Joe Contributor via John Doe Committer)
:
: I propose we remove "via <committers name>" from CHANGES.txt. I don't

FWIW: as first glance i thought you were suggesting that we should only
use "(Joe Contributor, John Doe Committer)" ... which i would disagree
with becuase it implies John "contributed", when he may not have done
any real work except run the "svn commit"

It seems (on second glance) that you are actually arguing that that the
person who runs "svn commit" should get zero credit in CHANGES.txt --
unless they actually contributed to the development of the patch.

+1 ... sure, why not

-Hoss

---------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Chris Hostetter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It seems (on second glance) that you are actually arguing that that the
> person who runs "svn commit" should get zero credit in CHANGES.txt --
> unless they actually contributed to the development of the patch.
>

Yes... I think it should be:

LUCENE-XXXX:
 Fixed a horrible nasty bug. (Joe Contributor)
--
lucidimagination.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

+1

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 6:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: remove "via"

Hello,

Currently we do this in CHANGES.txt:

LUCENE-XXXX:
  Fixed a horrible nasty bug. (Joe Contributor via John Doe Committer)

I propose we remove "via <committers name>" from CHANGES.txt. I don't think any users care about who committed changes and I think it de-emphasizes the actual contributor. If we need to know who committed something we can find this in SVN logs or on the jira issue.

Opinions?

--
lucidimagination.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------

+1.

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Steven A Rowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1
>
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 6:40 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: remove "via"
>
> Hello,
>
> Currently we do this in CHANGES.txt:
>
> LUCENE-XXXX:
>  Fixed a horrible nasty bug. (Joe Contributor via John Doe Committer)
>
> I propose we remove "via <committers name>" from CHANGES.txt. I don't think any users care about who committed changes and I think it de-emphasizes the actual contributor. If we need to know who committed something we can find this in SVN logs or on the jira issue.
>
> Opinions?
>
> --
> lucidimagination.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

2012/6/6 Robert Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Hello,
>
> Currently we do this in CHANGES.txt:
>
> LUCENE-XXXX:
>  Fixed a horrible nasty bug. (Joe Contributor via John Doe Committer)
>
> I propose we remove "via <committers name>" from CHANGES.txt. I don't
> think any users care about who committed changes and I think it
> de-emphasizes the actual contributor. If we need to know who committed
> something we can find this in SVN logs or on the jira issue.
>
> Opinions?
>

+1
Tommaso
>
> --
> lucidimagination.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

+1. If the existing ones are removed, it'll be less likely for me to
see one and think
that's the way it _should_ be done....

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:34 AM, Tommaso Teofili
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2012/6/6 Robert Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Currently we do this in CHANGES.txt:
>>
>> LUCENE-XXXX:
>>  Fixed a horrible nasty bug. (Joe Contributor via John Doe Committer)
>>
>> I propose we remove "via <committers name>" from CHANGES.txt. I don't
>> think any users care about who committed changes and I think it
>> de-emphasizes the actual contributor. If we need to know who committed
>> something we can find this in SVN logs or on the jira issue.
>>
>> Opinions?
>
>
> +1
> Tommaso
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> lucidimagination.com
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

On Jun 5, 2012, at 6:40 PM, Robert Muir wrote:

> Opinions?

I disagree - I think it makes it really easy to track who actually did the commit (the person *responsible* if it's a bad commit or a good commit) and I think there is some credit in a committer applying someones patch. They are doing the review and taking responsibility for the code change. I think *via* is pretty clear regarding credit, and I think it has value in it's information. Even if you simply commit someone else work, *you* are contributing to the issue. You better have reviewed it, you better be willing to take responsibility for it.

Appears I'm in the strong minority though.

- Mark Miller
lucidimagination.com


---------------------------------------------------------------------

> code change. I think *via* is pretty clear regarding credit, and I think it has value in it's information. Even if you simply commit someone else work, *you* are contributing to the issue. You better have reviewed it, you better be willing to take responsibility for it.

I don't think these are mutually exclusive. If you have contributed to
the issue and your gut feeling is you're part of the patch's effort,
you should include yourself as the author. If the patch is trivial
enough to just apply, I don't think adding the committer's name is
required (like Robert mentioned, bad patches can still be tracked from
revision control history so you'd know whom to blame anyway).

Dawid

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I've looked at the "via" in the changelog to figure out which committer works in which areas the most, and therefore who to ping about a patch.  And I do think that shepherding a patch file through to commit is worthy of some credit.  It's often a fair amount of work to evaluate a patch file, offer constructive suggestions to someone who may not be familiar with how the process works, and eventually get it committed.  And it's often fairly thankless since you typically are helping someone else scratch their itch, not your own!
On Jun 6, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Mark Miller wrote:

>
> On Jun 5, 2012, at 6:40 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
>
>> Opinions?
>
> I disagree - I think it makes it really easy to track who actually did the commit (the person *responsible* if it's a bad commit or a good commit) and I think there is some credit in a committer applying someones patch. They are doing the review and taking responsibility for the code change. I think *via* is pretty clear regarding credit, and I think it has value in it's information. Even if you simply commit someone else work, *you* are contributing to the issue. You better have reviewed it, you better be willing to take responsibility for it.
>
> Appears I'm in the strong minority though.
>
> - Mark Miller
> lucidimagination.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

-----------------------------------------------------
Eric Pugh | Principal | OpenSource Connections, LLC | 434.466.1467 | http://www.opensourceconnections.com
Co-Author: Apache Solr 3 Enterprise Search Server available from http://www.packtpub.com/apache-solr-3-enterprise-search-server/book
This e-mail and all contents, including attachments, is considered to be Company Confidential unless explicitly stated otherwise, regardless of whether attachments are marked as such.


---------------------------------------------------------------------

On Jun 6, 2012, at 8:26 AM, Dawid Weiss wrote:

> If you have contributed to
> the issue and your gut feeling is you're part of the patch's effort,
> you should include yourself as the author.

Personally, I prefer the current std - where a strong review and the taking of responsibility earns you a via rather than an authorship tag. I only add myself as an author if I actually contribute more than a trivial change to the code. I have much lower stds for other non committers, if they contribute to discussion in a powerful way, I will add them, but that is my own committer std.

In the case of review and responsibility, I do think it should not diminish from the true author by adding yourself as an author - and I think via has been great for that.

I think the two are a bit mutually exclusive for what I want. I like the current std.

- Mark Miller
lucidimagination.com


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Eric,

I agree 100% with you, we should keep "via".

Uwe

-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Pugh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 2:33 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: remove "via"
>
> I've looked at the "via" in the changelog to figure out which committer
works in
> which areas the most, and therefore who to ping about a patch.  And I do
think
> that shepherding a patch file through to commit is worthy of some credit.
It's
> often a fair amount of work to evaluate a patch file, offer constructive
> suggestions to someone who may not be familiar with how the process works,
> and eventually get it committed.  And it's often fairly thankless since
you
> typically are helping someone else scratch their itch, not your own!
>
>
> On Jun 6, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jun 5, 2012, at 6:40 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
> >
> >> Opinions?
> >
> > I disagree - I think it makes it really easy to track who actually did
the commit
> (the person *responsible* if it's a bad commit or a good commit) and I
think
> there is some credit in a committer applying someones patch. They are
doing
> the review and taking responsibility for the code change. I think *via* is
pretty
> clear regarding credit, and I think it has value in it's information. Even
if you
> simply commit someone else work, *you* are contributing to the issue. You
> better have reviewed it, you better be willing to take responsibility for
it.
> >
> > Appears I'm in the strong minority though.
> >
> > - Mark Miller
> > lucidimagination.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For
> > additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Eric Pugh | Principal | OpenSource Connections, LLC | 434.466.1467 |
> http://www.opensourceconnections.com
> Co-Author: Apache Solr 3 Enterprise Search Server available from
> http://www.packtpub.com/apache-solr-3-enterprise-search-server/book
>
> This e-mail and all contents, including attachments, is considered to be
> Company Confidential unless explicitly stated otherwise, regardless of
whether
> attachments are marked as such.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional
> commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------

+1 to remove the via. If someone has done work other then reviewing
and committing then he could add himself as one of the author (Order
is important; contributor first then committer. Depending on the work
done).

Maybe the contributors that have contributed in a release can also be
highlighted inside the release notes? (Just like improvements and
features are highlighted) Tika lists all people (committers and
contributors) that have contributed inside the changes.txt. I think
this will be a nice gesture.

Martijn

On 6 June 2012 15:44, Uwe Schindler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> I agree 100% with you, we should keep "via".
>
> Uwe
>
> -----
> Uwe Schindler
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> http://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Eric Pugh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 2:33 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: remove "via"
>>
>> I've looked at the "via" in the changelog to figure out which committer
> works in
>> which areas the most, and therefore who to ping about a patch.  And I do
> think
>> that shepherding a patch file through to commit is worthy of some credit.
> It's
>> often a fair amount of work to evaluate a patch file, offer constructive
>> suggestions to someone who may not be familiar with how the process works,
>> and eventually get it committed.  And it's often fairly thankless since
> you
>> typically are helping someone else scratch their itch, not your own!
>>
>>
>> On Jun 6, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > On Jun 5, 2012, at 6:40 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
>> >
>> >> Opinions?
>> >
>> > I disagree - I think it makes it really easy to track who actually did
> the commit
>> (the person *responsible* if it's a bad commit or a good commit) and I
> think
>> there is some credit in a committer applying someones patch. They are
> doing
>> the review and taking responsibility for the code change. I think *via* is
> pretty
>> clear regarding credit, and I think it has value in it's information. Even
> if you
>> simply commit someone else work, *you* are contributing to the issue. You
>> better have reviewed it, you better be willing to take responsibility for
> it.
>> >
>> > Appears I'm in the strong minority though.
>> >
>> > - Mark Miller
>> > lucidimagination.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For
>> > additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>> Eric Pugh | Principal | OpenSource Connections, LLC | 434.466.1467 |
>> http://www.opensourceconnections.com
>> Co-Author: Apache Solr 3 Enterprise Search Server available from
>> http://www.packtpub.com/apache-solr-3-enterprise-search-server/book
>>
>> This e-mail and all contents, including attachments, is considered to be
>> Company Confidential unless explicitly stated otherwise, regardless of
> whether
>> attachments are marked as such.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional
>> commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

--
Met vriendelijke groet,

Martijn van Groningen

---------------------------------------------------------------------

>
> Yes... I think it should be:
>
> LUCENE-XXXX:
>  Fixed a horrible nasty bug. (Joe Contributor)
>
>
I think it's very clear who the author was with:

LUCENE-XXXX:
 Fixed a horrible nasty bug. (Joe Contributor via Mr Committer)

I agree that committers should be generous and low key about their own
credit - but I think removing via is not that beneficial to contributor
credit, and is detrimental to committer credit - something that is also
important over the long term. We want to encourage committers to take up
others patches as much as we want to encourage others to make patches.
Until someone is a committer, reviewing and committing someones patch is a
large enough part of the issue to be pointed out. But should be separate
from the pure author section.

I see it as a net/net detrimental change over the long term.
--
- Mark

On 06/06/2012 00:40, Robert Muir wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Currently we do this in CHANGES.txt:
>
> LUCENE-XXXX:
>    Fixed a horrible nasty bug. (Joe Contributor via John Doe Committer)
>
> I propose we remove "via<committers name>" from CHANGES.txt. I don't
> think any users care about who committed changes and I think it
> de-emphasizes the actual contributor. If we need to know who committed
> something we can find this in SVN logs or on the jira issue.
>
> Opinions?

-1 for pretty much the same reasons as Mark and Eric listed - some work
is required even for trivial patches, and it also helps to quickly see
which committer was involved in reviewing and signing-off on an issue
(not always obvious from JIRA).

--
Best regards,
Andrzej Bialecki
http://www.sigram.com, blog http://www.sigram.com/blog
  ___.,___,___,___,_._. __________________<><____________________
[___||.__|__/|__||\/|: Information Retrieval, System Integration
___|||__||..\|..||..|: Contact: info at sigram dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------

: I've looked at the "via" in the changelog to figure out which committer
: works in which areas the most, and therefore who to ping about a patch.  

That's a user for the info that i hadn't really considered, and definitely
gives me pause...

I guess i'm changing my opinion:  -0.

-Hoss

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Following where Hoss bravely leads, I'll change too to -0

Erick

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Chris Hostetter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : I've looked at the "via" in the changelog to figure out which committer
> : works in which areas the most, and therefore who to ping about a patch.
>
> That's a user for the info that i hadn't really considered, and definitely
> gives me pause...
>
> I guess i'm changing my opinion:  -0.
>
>
>
> -Hoss
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

My initial +1 was because I guess I don't care if it's either way. As
far as important stuff is done I wouldn't worry about who gets the
credit...

Dawid

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Erick Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Following where Hoss bravely leads, I'll change too to -0
>
> Erick
>
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Chris Hostetter
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> : I've looked at the "via" in the changelog to figure out which committer
>> : works in which areas the most, and therefore who to ping about a patch.
>>
>> That's a user for the info that i hadn't really considered, and definitely
>> gives me pause...
>>
>> I guess i'm changing my opinion:  -0.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Hoss
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

On Jun 6, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Dawid Weiss wrote:

> As
> far as important stuff is done I wouldn't worry about who gets the
> credit...

I think that's kind of short sighted. These credits matter to some, and many of these things, while they may not matter to us personally, that does not make them unimportant as far as our structure and policies going forward.

While it may sound magnanimous to say, credit be damned, that's just mental masturbation, as long as the work comes in thats fine, I think it ignores the bigger picture. Why does Random Bum #2 get a credit in a movie? Do simple credits like this have value or not? And if they have value for outside contributors, do they also have value for committers when committing someone else's work? I know I was pumped the first time I got my name in the Lucene changes. Does it matter so much these days? No. But I wouldn't presume to make that call for others or future committers.

I have always been a fan of our credit system, and I think it serves it's purpose well. When I look for things like this, I don't start tracking down JIRA issues and SVN commits. I simply browse CHANGES.txt. I search for the number of occurrences for a user name, I look at how long its been since someone has been active, I check who likes to commit others work, etc. I've done all that at one time or another. I know there is a name or two in particular that mostly just commits others work if I remember right. If someone commits 1000 of someone else's patches, but does not author any, should they have no entry in CHANGES.txt? That sounds absurd to me.

It's a great place for prospective employers to look as well.

Personally, I currently don't have much stake in my name showing up in CHANGES.txt. It's currently easy enough to find a job regardless, and my ego is already fat and happy. But I would not evaluate these things personally - I evaluate them from the perspective of this project going forward - with the idea that there may be a completely new set of committers in 5 years time. What is the best policy for the project, not my own feelings about wanting or not wanting credit for something.

- Mark Miller
lucidimagination.com


---------------------------------------------------------------------

I think I understand your viewpoint but I'll stick with mine for now
(that is: I don't care for 'via' attribution in CHANGES.txt, but I
also don't object it -- I'll stick with whatever consensus there will
be).

Dawid

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jun 6, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Dawid Weiss wrote:
>
>> As
>> far as important stuff is done I wouldn't worry about who gets the
>> credit...
>
> I think that's kind of short sighted. These credits matter to some, and many of these things, while they may not matter to us personally, that does not make them unimportant as far as our structure and policies going forward.
>
> While it may sound magnanimous to say, credit be damned, that's just mental masturbation, as long as the work comes in thats fine, I think it ignores the bigger picture. Why does Random Bum #2 get a credit in a movie? Do simple credits like this have value or not? And if they have value for outside contributors, do they also have value for committers when committing someone else's work? I know I was pumped the first time I got my name in the Lucene changes. Does it matter so much these days? No. But I wouldn't presume to make that call for others or future committers.
>
> I have always been a fan of our credit system, and I think it serves it's purpose well. When I look for things like this, I don't start tracking down JIRA issues and SVN commits. I simply browse CHANGES.txt. I search for the number of occurrences for a user name, I look at how long its been since someone has been active, I check who likes to commit others work, etc. I've done all that at one time or another. I know there is a name or two in particular that mostly just commits others work if I remember right. If someone commits 1000 of someone else's patches, but does not author any, should they have no entry in CHANGES.txt? That sounds absurd to me.
>
> It's a great place for prospective employers to look as well.
>
> Personally, I currently don't have much stake in my name showing up in CHANGES.txt. It's currently easy enough to find a job regardless, and my ego is already fat and happy. But I would not evaluate these things personally - I evaluate them from the perspective of this project going forward - with the idea that there may be a completely new set of committers in 5 years time. What is the best policy for the project, not my own feelings about wanting or not wanting credit for something.
>
> - Mark Miller
> lucidimagination.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

-1 to remove all "via"
I agree with the opinions expressed in detail by Mark and Eric.  But I don't
think a committer should feel obliged to add their name if their involvement
seemed particularly light in their opinion.
~ David

-----
 Author: http://www.packtpub.com/apache-solr-3-enterprise-search-server/book
--
View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/remove-via-tp3987871p3988237.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I dont think there is any consensus here. Lets just keep it as-is.

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Robert Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Currently we do this in CHANGES.txt:
>
> LUCENE-XXXX:
>  Fixed a horrible nasty bug. (Joe Contributor via John Doe Committer)
>
> I propose we remove "via <committers name>" from CHANGES.txt. I don't
> think any users care about who committed changes and I think it
> de-emphasizes the actual contributor. If we need to know who committed
> something we can find this in SVN logs or on the jira issue.
>
> Opinions?
>
> --
> lucidimagination.com

--
lucidimagination.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------