I don't see it showing up at http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/#activemq. Is that expected?
Justin On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 10:33 AM Bruce Snyder <[email protected]> wrote: > The new mailing list for [email protected] has been created. > > Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help. > > Bruce > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 9:25 PM Bruce Snyder <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I have submitted the request to create the list. Now we just need await > > confirmation of its creation. > > > > Bruce > > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 4:35 PM Clebert Suconic < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> That is correct. > >> > >> > >> After this I will ask Infra to move github messages towards gitbox on > >> all the git projects belong to activemq, as they are all going towards > >> dev list. > >> > >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 6:33 PM Bruce Snyder <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > I am joining this discussion rather late but, after reading through > the > >> > comments from people, there seems to be some consensus (lazy or > >> otherwise > >> > without any -1s) to carry out the following: > >> > > >> > 1) Create a new mailing list, and > >> > 2) The new mailing list should be named [email protected] > >> > > >> > This new mailing list will be used for only the Gitbox messages. > >> > > >> > Please confirm or deny my understanding. > >> > > >> > Bruce > >> > > >> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 1:30 PM Clebert Suconic < > >> [email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > The list can only be created by the ActiveMQ PMC Chair. > >> > > > >> > > @Bruce Snyder can you create a list on > >> https://infra.apache.org/mail.html > >> > > > >> > > named [email protected] > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > When you create a git repository (as I'm about to create one for > >> > > activemq-artemis-native) it's fairly simple to set the list as > gitbox, > >> > > for that. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > and I will check if I can change the existing lists to gitbox, but I > >> > > believe I will need infra to help on that. > >> > > > >> > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 4:49 PM Clebert Suconic > >> > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > Ok, so far the best choice is [email protected] > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > If anyone objects, let me know.. I will give it 3 business day for > >> > > objections. > >> > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 3:49 PM michael.andre.pearce > >> > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > gitbox@ sounds good to me.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy > smartphone. > >> > > > > -------- Original message --------From: Robbie Gemmell < > >> > > [email protected]> Date: 22/02/2019 18:53 (GMT+00:00) To: > >> > > [email protected] Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github > >> messages > >> > > on a separate list I'm actually -0 on the move as noted below, which > >> is to > >> > > say I dontthink we should do it but I'm not objecting to the move > >> generally > >> > > (asI can just filter it all into the same place I have it now, no > >> > > bigdeal).I am -1 on using commits@ for it, since to me these mails > >> are > >> > > not commits mails.I think the mails relate very closely with what is > >> on > >> > > issues@currently, since its largely duplicated and I think people > >> > > interestedin one set should already be follwing both sets, so I > said I > >> > > wouldpersonally use that if moving somewhere. Chris and Tim appeared > >> > > tothink the same, though they are both +0 and dont see need to move > >> > > themails.Michael is also +0 and said he does not want the move but > >> wont > >> > > objectto it, but he doesnt want issues@ used and so prefers a new > >> list > >> > > ifthe mails move.If not issues@ and not commits@, I'm honestly not > >> too > >> > > bothered wherethey go so long as folks get clear notice of the > >> proposal and > >> > > knownperiod to form consensus around it, lazy or otherwise. You > >> > > suggestedgitbox@ yesterday and I asked for a timeline on when you > >> might > >> > > usethat so its clear at what point you consider lazy concensus > agreed > >> > > forgoing with it if noone replies discussing things further.RobbieOn > >> Fri, > >> > > 22 Feb 2019 at 12:28, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> > >> > > wrote:>> So you guys are +0 but you oppose to every move I propose. > >> If you > >> > > would> rather -1 please say so.>> Or, Say we separate the list where > >> we > >> > > place these messages? Can you post> your preference?>> On Thu, Feb > >> 21, 2019 > >> > > at 6:44 PM Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]>> wrote:>> > > I'm > >> not > >> > > sure where you think I disagree on that. I also said I'd> > prefer > >> they > >> > > remain on dev@ (lodging a -0 in contrast to others +0> > hehe). I > >> also > >> > > dont feel those mails need a seperate list. Some other> > people > >> think much > >> > > lower frequency general discussion threads (like> > this one) are > >> drowned > >> > > out by the PR comment mails and so would like> > these lower > frequency > >> > > discussions left on dev@ on their own.> > Personally, I will still > >> filter > >> > > all the traditional old dev stuff> > (dev@, issues@, and wherever > >> these > >> > > PR mails ultimately end up going)> > into one place as I do now, > >> where I > >> > > too like to follow and pick up on> > things from them.> >> > I am > >> however > >> > > saying I think that the PR mails are issue traffic> > (discussions, > >> yes) > >> > > and are very related+similar to the existing> > issues@ mails > rather > >> than > >> > > a distinct stream of conversation that need> > be on their own list > if > >> > > moved from dev@. Especially given many of the> > comment details > get > >> > > updated into the JIRAs, and so are already partly> > contained in > the > >> > > issues@ emails. I dont see a need to end up with two> > non-dev@ > >> lists > >> > > for such highly related and very similar volumes of> > content. I > >> dont see > >> > > that anyone interested enough in our development> > to follow either > >> issues@ > >> > > or dev@ currently should really be looking at> > just one or the > >> other of > >> > > those mail sets, they are fairly intertwined.> > Which again I say > >> having > >> > > them all filtered into the same place> > already. (To be clear, I > >> wasnt in > >> > > favour of issues@ existing either,> > I'd have it all on dev@ > >> personally. > >> > > I'm not one of those proposing> > otherwise however).> >> > Robbie> > >> >> > On > >> > > Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 20:01, michael.andre.pearce> > < > >> > > [email protected]> wrote:> > >> > > So here i > >> disagree. > >> > > The comments on pr for me are discussions. They are> > discussions > >> around > >> > > details of development. And actually i quite like having> > them in > >> the > >> > > dev, and i actually do follow and pick up on stuff because its> > > >> > > there.Thats why im not ecstatic about moving them thus a +0 vote. > Sent > >> > > from> > my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.> > > -------- Original message > >> > > --------From: Robbie Gemmell <> > [email protected]> Date: > >> > > 21/02/2019 17:49 (GMT+00:00) To:> > [email protected] > >> Subject: > >> > > Re: [Discuss] automated github messages> > on a separate list I > >> wouldn't > >> > > entirely agree there. The issue as described> > is that peoplewant > to > >> see > >> > > general dev@ discussions separate from issues> > traffic,largely as > >> they > >> > > arent entirely related and have dramatically> > differentvolumes. > That > >> > > would be resolved by moving the issue related> > PRcomments to > issues@ > >> .Yes, > >> > > moving it to issues@ would then move more> > traffic to an > >> existinglist, > >> > > which some folks might want to filter. However,> > distinct fromdev@ > , > >> > > there arent general discussisons that might be> > occurring > there,and > >> its a > >> > > list which is already receiving a similar set of> > highlyrelated > >> issue > >> > > traffic emails from JIRA, given those being updated> > withthe same > PR > >> > > comments in most cases. I'd have to wonder if there aremany> > folks > >> > > receiving issues@ traffic currently who arent alreadyreceiving the> > >> > dev@ > >> > > traffic and already handling both just how theywant, such that they> > >> > wont > >> > > really care about receiving both sets viaissues@ (and maybe > needing> > >> > to > >> > > adjust an existing filter if they dofilter already). There are 59 > >> people> > > >> > > subscribed to issues@, and Iexpect most of them are committers who > >> arent> > >> > > > so likely to be botheredby the move.All that said, besides being > >> against> > >> > > > using commits@, I'm actually nottoo bothered which happens > >> (including > >> > > a> > new list, or leaving it as-is)so long as people get notice of > the > >> > > specific> > change and time to chipin about it, as im going to > filter > >> it > >> > > all back into> > one pot anyway.RobbieOn Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at > 17:08,> > > >> > > michael.andre.pearce<[email protected]> wrote:>> > If > >> > > (+0> > on it moving) we move i would rather it be a new list.Id > >> actually > >> > > be> > against (treat it as a -1) moving it to an existing > >> > > list.Reasoning:By> > moving it to an alternative existing list the > >> same > >> > > arguement for not having> > it on dev can apply to then that list. > >> E.g. > >> > > what if i just want what i> > signed up to before and i dont want > the > >> git > >> > > noise, but i dont want to> > filter.All its doing is moving the > >> > > problem.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy> > smartphone.> -------- > Original > >> > > message --------From: Clebert Suconic <> > > [email protected]> > >> > > Date: 21/02/2019 16:05 (GMT+00:00) To:> > [email protected] > >> > > Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages> > on a separate > >> list I > >> > > made a mistake assuming lazy consensus.. .I did not> > intend to > >> cheatthe > >> > > process or anything.I don't want to talk too much about> > the > >> process here > >> > > to not divergethe discussion, as I will be more careful in> > the > >> future. > >> > > Don't worryabout that part.I don't have a strong feeling to> > what > >> list > >> > > we're moving. I thoughtmoving to its own list would clear any> > > >> doubts and > >> > > I suggested a newlist for that.If issues satisfy everybody lets> > > go > >> with > >> > > [email protected] Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:46 AM Robbie> > > > >> > > Gemmell<[email protected]> wrote:>> Can you elaborate on why > >> you> > >> > > > think the mails are better related to> commits@ but not issues@ > ?>> > >> For> > >> > > > me, they arent commits, but are issue-related given they tend to> > >> be> > > >> > > disucssion of the underlying problem or discussing improvements to> > >> the> > > >> > > changes addressing it. Similar to what most JIRA comments used to> > >> be> > > >> > > before the PRs. The PR will also typically have a JIRA associated> > >> which> > > >> > > comments get mirrored into as worklog, so they seem quite> related. > >> Once> > > >> > > all that discussion happens, a change may or may nto get> pushed, at > >> which> > >> > > > point it ends up with a mail on commits@.>> Robbie>> On Thu, 21 > Feb > >> > > 2019> > at 15:06, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> > >> wrote:> >> > >> > > > I> > would prefer either commits or its own list, those github > >> comments> > >> > > > are> > not always related to JIRA.> >> > I would go with> > > >> > > [email protected]> >> >> > @Tim Bish I understand you +0 > >> on> > > >> > > this. as I said I can myself deal> > with filters.. but the target > of > >> such> > >> > > > changes is for users and other> > non committers looking at the > dev > >> > > list.> > The noise doesn't make it> > easy. (Those gitbox messages > >> are just > >> > > noise,> > that i have to filter> > out.. so they are useless > anyway). > >> Devs > >> > > who like> > them will be able to> > subscribe the appropriate list.> > >> >> > > >> > > On Thu, Feb> > 21, 2019 at 9:37 AM Timothy Bish < > [email protected]> > >> > > wrote:> > >> > >> > On 2/21/19 9:13 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:> > > > > > >> > > Robbie. I sent this> > message on feb-14. JB suggested commit list > >> and I> > >> > > > > > agreed with him.> > So I assumed consensus.> > > >> > > >> > > > >> > If > >> > > you like another list> > please let me know the name and make a post > >> on > >> > > the> > > > Jira so this> > moves on.> > > >> > > > Thanks.> > >> > > > >> I'd go > >> > > with issues@ to keep> > them on the same list as the JIRA mails if> > >> > > > >> > > we have to move them at all> > but as others I'm +0 on the need to > >> move> > > >> > > > since mail filters work just> > fine.> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> > On > >> > > Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:37 AM> > Clebert Suconic < > >> [email protected]>> > >> > > > > > wrote:> > > >> > > >>> > If you prefer issues@. I’m fine with > >> > > that.> > > >>> > > >> On Thu, Feb> > 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Clebert > >> Suconic < > >> > > [email protected]>> > > >>> > wrote:> > > >>> > > >>> This > >> is a > >> > > simple task. I did not think it would be> > a big deal. Those> > > > >> >>> > >> > > gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone> > just filters > them > >> out). > >> > > I> > > >>> don’t see a point in keeping them on dev> > list. I can > >> filter > >> > > them out. But> > > >>> that doesn’t make it easy on non> > > committees > >> > > looking at our list.> > > >>>> > > >>> I updated the JiRA> > > >> accordingly. > >> > > I think the name is sensible enough.> > > >>>> > > >>> If you> > ok > >> with > >> > > everything we can move ahead. On that case update the> > > >>>> > > >> JIRA. If > >> > > not please let Me know.> > > >>>> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at> > > >> 7:54 > >> > > AM Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]>> > > >>> wrote:> > >> > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > >>>> Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to> > > >> > > suggest> > > >>>> specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that > >> means > >> > > a> > suggested> > > >>>> email address of [email protected]?> > > > >> >>>>> > >> > > > >> > >>>> Robbie> > > >>>>> > > >>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, > >> > > Robbie> > Gemmell <[email protected]>> > > >>>> wrote:> > > > >> >>>>> > >> > > I think we> > should stop asking infra to do things before they have > >> been> > >> > > > > >>>>>> > fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have > >> updated > >> > > the> > >> > >>>>> JIRA my next question would be: what is this new > >> list > >> > > called?> > Followed> > > >>>>> by, why didnt we create it already > >> using> > > >> > > https://selfserve.apache.org?> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Personally, I > >> would> > >> > > > just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem> > > >>>>> like > >> issues> > >> > > > traffic, and I think we have enough lists.> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > If > >> > > enough> > folks think we should use a new list though, it would be> > > > >> > > >> > > >>>>> good to> > agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy > >> > > consensus> > > >>>>>> > statement), then we can create it, and then > >> we can > >> > > ask infra to update> > >> > >>>>> things to use it.> > > >>>>>> > > > >> >>>>> > >> > > Robbie> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, > Clebert > >> > > Suconic <> > > >>>>> > [email protected]> wrote:> > > > >>>>>> > >> Lazy > >> > > consensus was for the> > overal move. I didn't think on the list> > > > > >> > > >>>>>> name (I thought it was> > ok on just moving it there)> > > > >> >>>>>>> > > >> > > > >>>>>> I will change the JIRA> > to be on its own list.> > > > >> >>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24> > AM Robbie Gemmell <> > > >>>> > >> > > [email protected]> wrote:> > >> > >>>>>>> Invoking Lazy > >> Consensus > >> > > normally involves giving people a clear> >> > > >>>> period> > > > >> >>>>>>> to > >> > > agree/disagree with your intended action> > before you initiate it.> > >> > > > >> > > >>>>>>> This mail thread had obviously been> > around for a number > of > >> > > days,> > > >>>> but> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'should> > we do this?' > >> isn't > >> > > quite the same thing as> > > >>>>>>> discussing 'I'm> > doing this > >> tomorrow > >> > > unless further discussion> > > >>>> suggests> > >> > >>>>>>> > >> otherwise'. > >> > > You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the> >> > > >>>>>>> > >> > > details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really> > >> > > >> >>>> > >> > > properly> > > >>>>>>> discussed the destination list: 'new list' > or> > > >> > > 'separate list' was> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> terminology you > used> > > >> > > throughout the thread and commits@ was only> > > >>>>>>> mentioned > >> as a> > >> > > > 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread.> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > I'm > >> -1 > >> > > on> > using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on> > > > >>>> > >> > > PRs> > >> > >>>>>>> belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" > >> > > already where> > the> > > >>>> JIRA> > > >>>>>>> traffic was moved > >> > > previously and between> > those two lists I'd say> > > >>>> that> > > > > >> > > >>>>>>> makes a far better> > destination, if it isn't to be a > >> completely > >> > > new> > > >>>>>>> list.> > >> > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> If folks mostly > >> think > >> > > using commits@ is great, so be> > it, but we> > > >>>> should> > > > >> > > >>>>>>> actually discuss that. I have> > posted on the JIRA to ask > >> that > >> > > Infra> > > >>>> to> > > >>>>>>> hold off> > moving things while we > do > >> so.> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm -0 on the> > overall move as I too > think > >> the > >> > > messages are fine> > > >>>> where> > >> > >>>>>>> they are and are > >> easily > >> > > filterable, but I do admit the same> > >> > >>>> applies in> > > > >> >>>>>>> > >> > > reverse; if we move them I'll typically just> > filter them back > >> into> > > > >> > > >>>> the> > > >>>>>>> same place they were going> > originally.> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Robbie> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On> > Wed, 20 > >> Feb > >> > > 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <> > > >>>>> > > >> [email protected]> > >> > > wrote:> > > >>>>>>>> I'm assuming consensus> > and I'm asking infra > >> to move > >> > > the gitbox> > > >>>>>>>> messages to the> > commit message.> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 18,> > 2019 at 11:44 AM > Clebert > >> > > Suconic> > > >>>>>>>> <[email protected]>> > wrote:> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Don’t get me wrong. I can do with filters> > personally.> > >> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I just think this could be more> > friendly > >> for > >> > > new people> > > >>>> joining in. Like Ryan yeats who just> > posted > >> his > >> > > opinion (as if someone> > > >>>> just joining)> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > What > >> about > >> > > this. We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages> > > >>>> to> > a > >> new > >> > > list.> > > >>>>>>>>> I already follow GitHub messages on my email> > > >> > > directly anyways.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> If people want those > >> they> > >> > > > can subscribe to the new list.> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On > >> Sun, Feb> > >> > > > 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce <> > > >>>>> > > >> > > [email protected]> wrote:> > > >>>>>>>>>> I am > >> also +0> > >> > > > on this. I find email filters more than> > > >>>> adequate, and > >> avoid me> > >> > > > having to maintain several mail group subscriptions,> > > >>>> it > >> will > >> > > all> > come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy> > > > >> >>>>> > > >> > > smartphone.> > > >>>>>>>>>> -------- Original message --------From: > >> > > Clebert> > Suconic <> > > >>>> [email protected]> Date: > >> > > 15/02/2019 22:39> > (GMT+00:00) To:> > > >>>> > >> [email protected] > >> > > Subject: Re: [Discuss]> > automated github> > > >>>> messages on a > >> separate > >> > > list The thing is. I can> > do fine with filtering.> > > >>>> So in > >> a way > >> > > I’m doing thisbased on a> > feedback of someone else.So I am> > > > >>>> > >> > > putting myself in the shoes of> > someone coming on board now. > >> Justtrying > >> > > to> > > >>>> make it easy for new> > people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at > >> 6:58 AM > >> > > Christopher> > > >>>> Shannon <> > [email protected]> > >> > > wrote:> I am +0 on this> > > >>>>> > because either way is fine with > >> me as > >> > > it's really easy to> do mail filters>> > > > >>>> on either > addresses > >> or on > >> > > subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github> > traffic> > > >>>> right > >> now > >> > > obviously so to make it> manageable I have> > filters and labels> > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub> > related messages get > >> tagged > >> > > with> > > >>>> one label and everything else is> > a> different one > >> which > >> > > solves the issue.> > > >>>> I imagine most email> > providers have> > >> > > something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15,> > > >>>> 2019 at 3:20> > AM > >> Clebert > >> > > Suconic <[email protected]> >> wrote:>>> > > >>>>>> > > People > >> are > >> > > probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> >> >> > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <[email protected]>>> > > > >> > > > >> > > >>>> wrote:> >> > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also > would> > >> > > >> > > like to> > > >>>> contribute> more> > > often: I think that it be > >> good.> >> > >> > > > >> > > I think> > > >>>> that the Github messages create a lot of > >> noise > >> > > in> > the mailbox.> It> > >> > > >>>> requires constant > >> cleaning/filtering > >> > > and it> > is easy to miss discussions> >> > > >>>>> about subjects > >> that > >> > > interest me> > and for which I would like to help.> > >>> > > >>>>>> > >> On > >> > > Fri, Feb 15, 2019> > at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > >> > > >>>> > >> > > [email protected]>>> > > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on > this > >> dev> > >> > > > > >>>> list on my daily> > basis. We had some members here> > > > > >> > > suggesting doing> > > >>>> this in> > the past and we decided to let > >> just > >> > > people> to> > > > filter out> > > >>>>> > stuff with filters. > Etc.> > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > But this doesn’t make easy to> > >> > >>>> recruit new open > >> > > source devs.> > > >> > > > I just heard from a guy> > who> > > >>>> > >> only > >> > > subscribed users list because there> is> > > too> > > >> > much > >> traffic.>> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Github is easy enough to follow. So I> > propose we > >> move > >> > > GitHub>> > > >>>> comments> > > to a> > > > separate list.>> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > We could> > > >>>> leave this list for more generic and> > > >> > > important discussions.> > > Such> > >> > > >>>>> as the web site.> > > >> > > Architectural decisions. Releases. And eventually> >> > > >>>> > >> even> > >> > >> > > > > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > >> > > > >> >>>>> > > >> > > Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > > >> --> >> > >> > > >> > > >>>> Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> --> > >> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > >> --> > > >> > > >> > >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > --> > >> > > > >> > > >>>>>>> > Clebert Suconic> > > >>> --> > > >>> Clebert Suconic> > > > >> >>>> > > >> > > > >> --> >> > > >> Clebert Suconic> > > >>> > >> > > --> > > Tim > >> Bish> > >> > >> > > >> >> > --> >> > Clebert Suconic-- Clebert Suconic> >> --> Clebert > >> Suconic > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > -- > >> > > > Clebert Suconic > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Clebert Suconic > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > perl -e 'print > >> > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" > );' > >> > > >> > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ > >> > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/> > >> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Clebert Suconic > >> > > > > > > -- > > perl -e 'print > > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );' > > > > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ > > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/> > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder > > > > > -- > perl -e 'print > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );' > > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder >
