Hi, just to add to this proposal thread expressing my opinion. I think this change will have a huge positive impact in the project:
1.- Reduce repos from 3 to just 1, so reducing all actions and overhead all that implies. 2.- Builds will be much more easy since all is contained in one repo instead of gathering from three. Right now builds in one repo must count with the build produced by other(s) in the chain of execution. 3.- Remove duplicated config that could be just in one place reducing complexity. Right now many configs are duplicated in each repo due to the actual 3 repo layout. 4.- Releases will turn just to 3 commands on a terminal what will be a big point for all RMs and the project allowing us to release much more easy. 5.- Less commands means less errors and more automation 6.- Times to release will cut under the current 1h 30'' (as you can defer from the sum of the times of each video posted by Chris). 7.- The process will continue improving towards a maven compliant build and release process with all the benefits that following a standard process means and how all of that means to the actual Apache build and release process. 8.- Improving over time will be more easy too. For me this is one of the key points for reaching 1.0, since will mean we are really prepared to do monthly (or bi-monthly if we want) releases of Royale. About others as RMs. I think is needed to understand the actual process and know what will mean to improve this way. So I think is good Harbs do the next release in the actual state to gain that knowledge. In exchange I think Piotr already knows very close since he did 0.9.6, so don't think is needed. I think the optimal time frame to work on this could be: 1.- Harbs work this June on release. Here we could improve on version numbers [1], since we are adding lots of stuff in each release and the bug fixing is implied. Maybe as we settle third version numbers will be more important, since will be less new stuff and maybe more fixing, or we could do minor releases and bug fixing releases... 2.- Start working on this "one repo feature". Thanks Carlos [1] https://semver.org/ El dom., 31 may. 2020 a las 13:15, Christofer Dutz (< [email protected]>) escribió: > Hi all, > > so thankfully Carlos watched the full 1,5 hours of my release video and > told me it was ok ... so I'll share them with you: > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=1BDKG-zPW3CoWLI0KQJDO5PGyEJQtKRb4 > > In video 1 (27 Minutes) I am releasing the "compiler " > In video 2 (10 Minutes) I am releasing the "typedefs" > In video 3 (50 Minutes) I am releasing the "asjs/framework" > > Most additional steps are just related to the separation of the 3 repos > ... > If we were to merge them and I would do my refactoring to the > royale-maven-plugin, it would just be the steps of video 1. > > I also added some background infos on what's happening in which step and > why I'm doing things the way I am ... pehaps it makes the 1,5h a little > more educational as if I just typed in the commands ... will prepare a > text-document with all the steps ASAP. > > Chris > > > > > Am 31.05.20, 09:29 schrieb "Yishay Weiss" <[email protected]>: > > Alex might want to confirm, but I’m pretty sure DST issue was fixed. > > From: Greg Dove<mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 1:40 AM > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things? > > Chris, Harbs & others, > > Sorry I didn't reply earlier on this thread, I have been very focused > on > some intense work tasks, consuming extra hours in each day for some > time > now. > > Unless I misunderstood something, I think we already had consensus on > top-level things like: > > a) we need the royale sdk (as3 language support + application > framework + > compiler + typedefs) to continue to be usable via ant, maven, npm and > possibly other future build tools > b) we need the distribution/artifacts to be validated for each of the > end-user supported build tools > c) we need the release process to be as simple and streamlined as > possible, > while still keeping quality checks in place. > > This is just my limited interpretation/synthesis of discussions to > date, so > I hope it it makes sense. There were some expressions that certain > things > had to be done a certain way at (c) in order to achieve (b). > If my expression above (representing my understanding) is correct, > then I > really don't care what tech we use to achieve (c), so long as (a) and > (b) > are achieved. I guess the only other thing I would add is that > whatever we > use for (c) should be easy to understand and maintain, but perhaps > that is > inherent in the 'simple and streamlined' part of what I expressed. > > Chris, > Thanks for investing your time in this, and for your proposal. If my > understanding above is correct then I think your proposal covers that > along > with the general improvements in maven configurations and support. > I'll try to find time to watch the video in the coming week. > > One specific comment about: ' perhaps even help the automated testing > in > the ASJS repo.' > At the moment there is a RoyaleUnit ant task that Josh created. If > RoyaleUnit could somehow be supported via maven that would be awesome. > I > know you have other approaches as well for automated UI testing, but > RoyaleUnit permits re-use of legacy FlexUnit tests, so supporting that > via > maven would be a major plus, I think. > > Harbs, > Thanks for the suggestion that I participate as RM. I only understand > the > current process in a very abstract sense, apart from the time I watched > Chris and Carlos going through the first 7 steps. > I agree that, in general, it's better to understand a process before > decisions relating to improvements are considered for that process, > and I > know I do not really understand it well. But I don't think that needs > to > include me, and would prefer not to be RM in the near term. I will be > happy > to do this at some point, but I envisage my time being quite > pre-occupied > with asjs (particularly emulation) work over the next couple of > months, and > prefer to keep my limited neurons focused on that for now. Basically, > I am > happy to defer to others here. > > As an aside, one of the issues identified in recent weeks was the DST > alignment issue which seemed to require DST alignment between RM's > local > machine and the CI server. Perhaps that is fixed now, I am not sure. > If it > is not then, based on the original description of the cause of that > problem, it might preclude me being RM until it is fixed in any case, > because that misalignment would hold true most of the year for me (I > would > consider it important to fix, but not urgent to fix because we have, I > believe, no others currently from the southern hemisphere who could be > RM > right now anyway). > > > Greg > > On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 4:02 AM Christofer Dutz < > [email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Today I just prepared my forks of royale again and did a full > release of > > all 3 repos and did a video recording of that. > > I did find some minor quirks which I'll whip up a PR for (no profile > name > > or directory changes). > > > > As soon as I am finished cutting the video and removed lots minutes > of > > jewl-theme-compilation stuff I'll publish the link to the videos > here. > > > > Chris > > > > Am 28.05.20, 18:03 schrieb "Andrew Wetmore" <[email protected]>: > > > > Seems like the simplest way. > > > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:55 PM Christofer Dutz < > > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Infra says there's nothing in-between all or nothing with > github :-( > > > > > > So I'll probably go down the google doc route and have the text > > imported > > > by one of you folks. > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > Am 28.05.20, 17:38 schrieb "Harbs" <[email protected]>: > > > > > > I’m going offline for two days so I’ll be quiet for a > while, but > > it > > > might be a good idea to ask infra whether they have a solution > to > > this > > > problem. > > > > > > Harbs > > > > > > > On May 28, 2020, at 5:36 PM, Christofer Dutz < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > well perhaps searching for some experiences with this ... > > > > my gut-feeling would make me expect to have the wiki > content > > > replaced by Viagra ads ;-) > > > > > > > > But it would be in git, so easily undoable .... > > > > > > > > I did find this however: > > > > > > > > > > https://www.growingwiththeweb.com/2016/07/enabling-pull-requests-on-github-wikis.html > > > > > > > > It's less convenient way, but probably safer. > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 28.05.20, 16:25 schrieb "Harbs" < > [email protected]>: > > > > > > > > Hmm. That’s a problem I was not aware of... > > > > > > > > What do folks think about enabling public editing of > > wikis?[1] > > > > > > > > Harbs > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis > > > < > > > > > > https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis > > > > > > > > > > > >> On May 28, 2020, at 5:00 PM, Christofer Dutz < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Hi all, > > > >> > > > >> so I just had a look ... it seems as if the "fork" > feature on > > > github doesn't fork the wiki too ... > > > >> So I could create my own pages, but not create PRs for > > > documentation ... or I just didn't find the docs on how to do > it. > > > >> Do you have any pointers for me? > > > >> > > > >> Chris > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Am 28.05.20, 13:55 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" < > > > [email protected]>: > > > >> > > > >> Chris, > > > >> > > > >> We are not using confluence at all. We are using Wiki > [1], > > but > > > you can > > > >> write document in whatever place you wanted to if you > are > > not > > > comfortable > > > >> with wiki. > > > >> > > > >> Andrew, > > > >> > > > >> Will you be willing to translate that document into > our Wiki > > > manner ? > > > >> > > > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki > > > >> > > > >> Thanks, > > > >> Piotr > > > >> > > > >> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:43 Christofer Dutz < > > > [email protected]> > > > >> napisał(a): > > > >> > > > >>> Hi Piotr, > > > >>> > > > >>> I think the Royale project could grant my user write > > permissions to > > > >>> confluence. > > > >>> Then I could write such a document there. > > > >>> > > > >>> But I could also do a google doc outside, if this is > more > > > convenient. > > > >>> > > > >>> Chris > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> Am 28.05.20, 13:39 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" < > > > [email protected]>: > > > >>> > > > >>> Chris, > > > >>> > > > >>> I think I would like to be after Harbs and eventually > > Greg. Yes > > > you can > > > >>> send me a link, write a document with absolutely > EVERY step > > > which I > > > >>> have to > > > >>> do in order to get release done. Even if you think > that I > > know > > > some > > > >>> steps > > > >>> like signing - you can in such places point into some > > existing > > > >>> document. > > > >>> > > > >>> I would like to be able to comment on every step to > > confront if I > > > >>> really > > > >>> for example had to copy/paste some command or just > > opposite I > > > had to do > > > >>> much more than only copy/paste. > > > >>> > > > >>> Thanks, > > > >>> Piotr > > > >>> > > > >>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:27 Christofer Dutz < > > > [email protected]> > > > >>> napisał(a): > > > >>> > > > >>>> Hi Piotr, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> we could change the configuration to use the jgit > plugin on > > the CI > > > >>> machine > > > >>>> and to use the default on local machines. > > > >>>> In that case you could do it on any machine you want > (also > > > windows) > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Who does releases in which order using which tooling > ... I > > don't > > > >>> really > > > >>>> care ... > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I'm just happy that there's a line building up of > people > > wanting > > > to > > > >>> do so > > > >>>> and I get to use fresh releases :-) > > > >>>> > > > >>>> If there is anything I can help with ... just ping me > and > > I'll be > > > >>> happy to > > > >>>> help. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Chris > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Am 28.05.20, 13:18 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" < > > > >>> [email protected]>: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Hi Harbs, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I would like to be a release manager as well, but > using > > Chri's > > > >>>> implementation which as far as I know is in place. I > > would like > > > >>> to use > > > >>>> his > > > >>>> mentioned 3 steps and see how much things I will > have to > > do on > > > >>> my own > > > >>>> to > > > >>>> make release happen. I know that I will have to do > that > > on Mac, > > > >>> cause > > > >>>> there > > > >>>> some Maven/Git/Jenkins related plugin which allows > use > > Jenkins, > > > >>> but it > > > >>>> prevents me from pushing artifacts from windows. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I have some thoughts about above proposition, but I > will > > wait > > > >>> till we > > > >>>> all > > > >>>> pass trough the release process. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Thanks, > > > >>>> Piotr > > > >>>> > > > >>>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 11:06 Christofer Dutz < > > > >>> [email protected]> > > > >>>> napisał(a): > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Hi Harbs, > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> makes sense. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Chris > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" < > [email protected] > > >: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Hi Chris, > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Thanks for you work helping with the 0.9.7 release > as > > well. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I’m definitely open to improving the structure and > the > > > >>> process. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> My biggest hesitation is that I don’t understand > the > > > >>> current > > > >>>> release > > > >>>>> process well enough. Until recently Alex was the > only one > > who > > > >>> really > > > >>>>> understood it. Yishay just went through the process > so he > > has > > > >>> a good > > > >>>>> understanding now. I plan on doing another release > the week > > > >>>> following next > > > >>>>> (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is that I will > > > >>> understand it > > > >>>> better > > > >>>>> at that point. I don’t know whether Greg Dove is > willing > > to do > > > >>> a > > > >>>> release, > > > >>>>> but I think it would be very valuable to get his > input as > > well. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> So my proposal is that we get some more of us > familiar > > > >>> with the > > > >>>> what > > > >>>>> and the why of the current process. I want to > understand > > what > > > >>> was > > > >>>> done and > > > >>>>> why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable having an > > opinion on > > > >>>> changing > > > >>>>> things until I can weigh the pros and cons. I’d like > more > > of > > > >>> us to > > > >>>> be in > > > >>>>> the same position so we will be in the position of > building > > > >>>> consensus on > > > >>>>> changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove > specifically > > does a > > > >>>> release is > > > >>>>> because I feel he’s pretty neutral on technology and > I > > think > > > >>> he’ll > > > >>>> have > > > >>>>> good valuable input. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> So here’s my proposal: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3 releases in > rapid > > > >>> succession > > > >>>>> without making too many changes. > > > >>>>> 2. Let’s try and get as many of us familiar with > that > > > >>> process as > > > >>>>> possible. > > > >>>>> 3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the pain points > and > > > >>> what can > > > >>>> be > > > >>>>> done to improve the structure and/or the process > with pros > > and > > > >>> cons. > > > >>>> Maybe > > > >>>>> your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe something > else? > > > >>> Similar? > > > >>>> Don’t > > > >>>>> know, but I’d like to get to the point where we can > have an > > > >>>> intelligent > > > >>>>> discussion on the topic with different points of > view. I > > don’t > > > >>> think > > > >>>> we’re > > > >>>>> quite there yet. > > > >>>>> 4. Carefully start implementing changes. Making big > > > >>> changes is > > > >>>> often > > > >>>>> disruptive and is often the cause of conflict. This > is > > nothing > > > >>>> specific to > > > >>>>> us, and there’s even accepted advice on the topic. I > > suggest > > > >>> we all > > > >>>> read > > > >>>>> and follow James Duncan Davidson's “rules for > > > >>> revolutionaries”[1]. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I appreciate having your proposed changes to > ponder the > > > >>> next > > > >>>> couple of > > > >>>>> weeks. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> In the meantime, please by all means, dive into > Royale > > and > > > >>> create > > > >>>>> issues, pull requests, let us know difficulties, > etc. I’ll > > > >>> make my > > > >>>> best > > > >>>>> effort to be as responsive as possible and help > where I > > can. If > > > >>>> you’re > > > >>>>> feeling frustration, please reach out to me on Slack. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Does this make sense? > > > >>>>> Harbs > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> [1]http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries < > > > >>>>> http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz < > > > >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Hi all, > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 … it > greatly > > > >>>> simplified > > > >>>>> the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts out > there in > > the > > > >>> wild. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> I would really like to see Royale as the tool in my > > > >>> toolbox for > > > >>>>> building industrial UI applications as I sort of am > not > > that > > > >>> happy > > > >>>> with the > > > >>>>> other existing alternatives. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> In order to do this I know that I have some areas of > > > >>> expertise > > > >>>> I can > > > >>>>> offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and MXML > code > > is > > > >>>> definitely not > > > >>>>> where I can help best. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> However I’m really good at Java, Maven and Apache > > > >>>> Infrastructure. I > > > >>>>> know that development is most active in the ASJS > repo but I > > > >>> would be > > > >>>> happy > > > >>>>> to help on the other sides ... perhaps even help the > > automated > > > >>>> testing in > > > >>>>> the ASJS repo. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> I would have one proposal on how to really simplify > > > >>> things, > > > >>>> but I > > > >>>>> would be hesitant to start working on this before we > have > > > >>> consensus > > > >>>> on this > > > >>>>> here. > > > >>>>>> It would probably involve multiple weeks of full > time > > > >>> work in > > > >>>> total > > > >>>>> to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it, if > the > > project > > > >>> would > > > >>>> accept > > > >>>>> it in the end and you folks would be willing to help > with > > the > > > >>> parts > > > >>>> I’m not > > > >>>>> too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So > that’s why > > I’m > > > >>>> bringing > > > >>>>> this up here first. I know it might question some > unwritten > > > >>> project > > > >>>> rules, > > > >>>>> but I would kindly ask you to not just block the > > discussion and > > > >>>> perhaps > > > >>>>> help re-evaluating why they became “project rules” > and if > > the > > > >>>> assumptions > > > >>>>> were correct or still apply. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> The benefit would be: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> * Less problems in getting set-up (just clone one > > > >>> repo) > > > >>>>>> * Simpler release (Only need to release one > > > >>> repository … no > > > >>>>> updating of version information in-between) > > > >>>>>> * Less things that can go wrong (I remember when > > > >>> compiler > > > >>>> was > > > >>>>> already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t yet … > there > > were > > > >>> issues > > > >>>>> discussed on the list) > > > >>>>>> * I would use the opportunity to clean up some > things > > > >>> in the > > > >>>>> maven build, because despite the probably common > > assumption … > > > >>> I’m not > > > >>>>> really happy with the usability of the maven build > from a > > > >>> user’s > > > >>>>> perspective … I think there’s great room for > improvement > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> In general I would propose to merge all 3 > repositories > > > >>> into > > > >>>> one. > > > >>>>> Right now the Maven build would probably work with > > different > > > >>>> releases of > > > >>>>> the compiler or typedefs but from what I can see … > the Ant > > > >>> release > > > >>>> would > > > >>>>> probably not work without modification. So the whole > idea > > of > > > >>>> releasing > > > >>>>> separately seems to be more a theoretical one. I > think in > > the > > > >>>> history of > > > >>>>> FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once (please > correct > > me > > > >>> if I’m > > > >>>>> wrong). If there are external entities only > interested in > > > >>> consuming > > > >>>> parts > > > >>>>> of the project, we could build source distribution > for > > these > > > >>> that > > > >>>> only > > > >>>>> contain the parts they are interest in. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> * I propose to move the artifacts needed for the > > > >>> build but > > > >>>> not > > > >>>>> being part of the build (build-tools, jburg-types) > into a > > > >>> separate > > > >>>>> repository where they can be released independently > and > > don’t > > > >>> cause > > > >>>>> confusion like they are doing right now. > > > >>>>>> * Then I would like to create a new repository > (Let’s > > > >>> call > > > >>>> it > > > >>>>> “royale”) which contains 3 directories: compiler, > typedefs > > and > > > >>> asjs > > > >>>> (or > > > >>>>> even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t > really > > > >>> care/mind). > > > >>>>>> * Now comes the biggest block … I would need to > > > >>> completely > > > >>>>> rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of it > would be > > also > > > >>> moved > > > >>>> to the > > > >>>>> new build-tools repository. This plugin would sort > of be an > > > >>> empty > > > >>>> skeleton > > > >>>>> to load compiler plugins. This is needed as Maven > can’t > > build a > > > >>>> project > > > >>>>> where a plugin used in the project is also part of > the > > build > > > >>> itself. > > > >>>> So we > > > >>>>> couldn’t build all-in-one go without this change. > > > >>>>>> * Next step would be to add a new royale-parent > pom > > > >>> in the > > > >>>> new > > > >>>>> root of the project, the 3 old parents would be > updated to > > use > > > >>> the > > > >>>> new > > > >>>>> parent and a lot of duplicated configuration could > be moved > > > >>> there, > > > >>>> hereby > > > >>>>> greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> A migration plan, could be to : > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> * create a feature-branch in all 3 repositories > > > >>>>>> * create two new repos “royale” and > > > >>> “royale-build-tools” (or > > > >>>>> whatever you want to name them) > > > >>>>>> * Start with using git submodules to import the 3 > > > >>> branches > > > >>>> into > > > >>>>> the new (I know submodules really suck, but they > would > > only be > > > >>>> needed until > > > >>>>> everything is finished) > > > >>>>>> * I would move/copy the build tools to the new > repo > > > >>> and > > > >>>> start > > > >>>>> working on the new maven plugin > > > >>>>>> * Then I would need to update the old compiler > repo to > > > >>>> produce > > > >>>>> something I can use as royale-maven-plugin plugins > > > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the typedefs to > > > >>> use the > > > >>>> new > > > >>>>> plugin > > > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the asjs repo > to > > > >>> use the > > > >>>> new > > > >>>>> plugin > > > >>>>>> * Then I would add the new royale-parent pom > > > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would simplify and > deduplicate > > > >>> the > > > >>>>> configuration > > > >>>>>> * Now I would definitely need some help with > > > >>> adjusting the > > > >>>> Ant > > > >>>>> and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most of them > > should be > > > >>>>> profile-names and maybe directory names or paths) > > > >>>>>> * The last thing that would be required to be > done now > > > >>>> would be > > > >>>>> to remove the submodules in the “royale” repository > and to > > > >>> import > > > >>>> the real > > > >>>>> repos > > > >>>>>> * After this the 3 old repos could be archived > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> I am really looking forward to some open discussion > on > > > >>> this. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Chris > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> -- > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 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>* > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> > > > >> Piotr Zarzycki > > > >> > > > >> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki > > > >> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>* > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Andrew Wetmore > > > > http://cottage14.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
