Any more comments on the workflow?
I now realize that I actually made a mistake in my last mail and in my
current model we wouldn't need "Accepted" ("Open" would basically model
that)This would be my suggestion which has two open questions: Triage needed -> Open OR Accepted -> Review needed OR Patch available -> Closed I don't really have an opinion. If no one else has one either then I'd suggest the following: Triage needed -> Open -> Patch available -> Closed I chose Open & "Patch available" because they are more consistent with what other projects are using. This is my proposal: <https://imgur.com/bkVdisE> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 11:15 PM Lars Francke <lars.fran...@gmail.com> wrote: > Understood! > > Well, in that case the proposed Beam workflow[1] is almost exactly what > I'd like with the only exception of the name "In Progress" switched to > "Accepted" > The only other minor thing is "Review needed" which already led to > confusion in this thread and could be called "Triage needed" > > What do others think? > > Lars > > [1] < > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12955531/Screen%20Shot%202019-01-19%20at%202.50.32%20PM.png > > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:54 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Just waiting on https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17628, >> nothing >> serious. >> >> +1 to Accepted >> Also -1 to "in progress". I've had something like that on many projects, >> never useful. >> >> Kenn >> >> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 11:30 AM Lars Francke <lars.fran...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Thanks for the clarification. >> > >> > In which way are you blocked? I don't quite get that yet. >> > >> > >> > Open question for me are: >> > >> > Accepted vs. Triaged? >> > I'm in favor of Accepted, it's the easier word (for non natives at >> least) >> > >> > Do we want a state "In progress"? (Asking because the Mesos flow has >> that >> > which was Senses original suggestion) >> > I'm against it as it's information that can go stale. Attaching a >> patch/PR >> > or commenting is enough in my opinion. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Lars >> > >> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019, 18:23 Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > > Clarification: I am in favor of accepted / not accepted as a state. >> Beam >> > is >> > > just currently using a tag because we are blocked on the issue. In the >> > > shared Jira install, it is also bad that "triaged" "triage" "Triaged" >> are >> > > all separate tags. >> > > >> > > Kenn >> > > >> > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:05 AM Sönke Liebau >> > > <soenke.lie...@opencore.com.invalid> wrote: >> > > >> > > > I concur. >> > > > Not fussy whether we implement triage needed as tag or an extra >> state, >> > > > it's the thought that counts :) >> > > > >> > > > It might be more consistent to have it as a state and potentially >> make >> > > > some statistics easier, but that is pure conjecture on my part. >> > > > >> > > > Best, >> > > > Sönke >> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 3:27 PM Lars Francke < >> lars.fran...@gmail.com> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > Hi, >> > > > > >> > > > > this is more complicated than I thought initially :) >> > > > > >> > > > > I agree that fewer states is better for understanding and >> > maintenance. >> > > We >> > > > > should definitely have a "state diagram" of our flow on the Wiki. >> We >> > > > > currently have five states. >> > > > > >> > > > > * I also like to have the state "Patch available" or more >> generally >> > > > "Review >> > > > > needed" (noting that Kenneth understands review = triage). I don't >> > > think >> > > > > that Github PR is enough when people submit simple patches >> > > > > >> > > > > * I also like to distinguish triaged from untriaged (accepted vs. >> > > > > unaccepted) issues, whether tag or state based I don't know. Tag >> is >> > > easy >> > > > to >> > > > > forget, state is implicit so I lean towards that but Kenneth was >> > > against >> > > > it >> > > > > I believe? >> > > > > >> > > > > * I'm against a separation of CLOSED and RESOLVED >> > > > > >> > > > > * I don't think we need a REOPENED state. I've never really seen >> the >> > > > point, >> > > > > when we reopen we can just go back to the normal "open" state. >> > > > > >> > > > > I could live with a workflow like this: >> > > > > TRIAGE NEEDED -> OPEN -> PATCH AVAILABLE -> CLOSED >> > > > > >> > > > > That'd be four states so even one fewer than we have today. >> > > > > >> > > > > Cheers, >> > > > > Lars >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 8:39 AM Dmitriy Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org >> > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Hi, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > IMO we need some sort of Patch Available/Review Needed state >> > because >> > > > the >> > > > > > presence of PR does not imply of its state and quality. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Open->...validate...->Open(triaged)->... actual work..->Patch >> > > > > > Available->...review... ->Closed. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Patch Available indicates patch is there and it is ready for >> > review, >> > > > it is >> > > > > > in a state when it could be merged. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > What if review fails, then we can use backward transition Patch >> > > > > > Available->Open (cancel patch). >> > > > > > What if PR there has conflicts or outdated. What if contributor >> > > became >> > > > > > unresponsive and don't updater his or her PR. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > PA state or Review Needed state is needed for a number of cases. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Sincerely, >> > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > чт, 7 мар. 2019 г. в 07:34, Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org>: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 3:19 PM Sönke Liebau >> > > > > > > <soenke.lie...@opencore.com.invalid> wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hey all, >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > just to pick this up again, we have a suggestion for a >> fairly >> > > > simple >> > > > > > > > workflow by Kenn, which I'd like to briefly summarize to >> ensure >> > > > that I >> > > > > > > > understood everything correctly :) >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > The workflow will have three states: >> > > > > > > > Open >> > > > > > > > Review Needed >> > > > > > > > Closed >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Additionally, we have a tag "triaged" that is applied to >> Open >> > > > tickets >> > > > > > > > when it is decided that they have merit. If during review >> of an >> > > > open >> > > > > > > > ticket it is decided that this is not necessary/not a >> bug/... >> > > then >> > > > it >> > > > > > > > will be closed instead of receiving the triaged tag. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > So any work should be done on tickets in the state open with >> > the >> > > > tag >> > > > > > > > "triaged". Once a pull request or a patch is submitted the >> > ticket >> > > > > > > > moves to "review needed". Based on the outcome of the >> review it >> > > > then >> > > > > > > > either moves back to open or to closed when something is >> > > committed. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Did I get that right, Kenn? >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Almost :-) >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > - What I meant by "Review Needed" was actually "Triage >> Needed". >> > > > This is >> > > > > > > the initial state of all tickets, because users may not know >> > where >> > > > to put >> > > > > > > them or who to ping. >> > > > > > > - Once it is triaged, you move to "Open". >> > > > > > > - When done, goes to "Closed" and you can make a comment >> about >> > > why, >> > > > or >> > > > > > > Jira has some statuses. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > The workaround in Beam right now is: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > - Initial state is "Open", and we subscribe to a "does not >> have >> > > > > > `triaged` >> > > > > > > tag" saved search. (simulates "Needs Triage" state) >> > > > > > > - Once it is looked at, moved to the right component, has >> right >> > > > > > priority, >> > > > > > > pinged right people, add `triaged` tag >> > > > > > > - Close as usual >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > So I just watch for all non-triaged Jiras and all open pull >> > > requests >> > > > in >> > > > > > LRU >> > > > > > > order. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > We really don't need separate state for noting there is a PR >> > > > available. >> > > > > > If >> > > > > > > you put "[TRAINING-12345] this fixes a thing" in the pull >> request >> > > > title, >> > > > > > it >> > > > > > > links automatically with the named Jira if set up the way most >> > > > projects >> > > > > > > are. You can probably even do an advance Jira search for >> these if >> > > you >> > > > > > > prefer to work in Jira instead of GitHub to find open PRs. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Kenn >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Best regards, >> > > > > > > > Sönke >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 10:50 PM Sharan Foga < >> sha...@apache.org >> > > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On 2019/03/04 17:47:33, Dmitriy Pavlov < >> dpav...@apache.org> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > Hi >> > > > > > > > > > = JIRA workflow >> > > > > > > > > > I've checked JIRA admin interface and there is no >> option to >> > > > edit >> > > > > > > Issue >> > > > > > > > > > Workflow. So I guess only Infra can edit Workflows. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hi Dimitry >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Yes - I think someone else has shown that we need to >> request >> > > the >> > > > > > change >> > > > > > > > of flow through Infra, so once we agree then we can create >> the >> > > > request. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > AFAIK Apache JIRA has a number of pre-defined workflows, >> > and >> > > > > > probably >> > > > > > > > we >> > > > > > > > > > need somehow to point to some option. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > = Wiki pages >> > > > > > > > > > As for the wiki, Confluence has a number of permissions >> to >> > be >> > > > > > defined >> > > > > > > > for >> > > > > > > > > > each user, and I'm not sure Apache wiki has convenient >> > groups >> > > > in >> > > > > > it. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > There is a default anonymous user with view access only. I >> > > think >> > > > this >> > > > > > > is >> > > > > > > > a safeguard against spam. As far as I know, I didn't think >> > > setting >> > > > the >> > > > > > > user >> > > > > > > > permissions were a problem and I've generally added people >> once >> > > > they >> > > > > > have >> > > > > > > > requested access.( BTW I've added you to the wiki with edit >> > > > access.) >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Thanks >> > > > > > > > > Sharan >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > (P)PMCs, please grant me admin access to the wiki and I >> > could >> > > > > > > > setup/edit >> > > > > > > > > > user permissions. username=dpavlov >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, >> > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > пн, 4 мар. 2019 г. в 20:27, Mirko Kämpf < >> > > > mirko.kae...@gmail.com>: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sönke, >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I registered and logged in to the Wiki (for adding the >> > > report >> > > > > > > > template) >> > > > > > > > > > > but I can't find the page editor. >> > > > > > > > > > > Are there any permission issues which give me >> read-only >> > > > access? >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, >> > > > > > > > > > > Mirko >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Am Mo., 4. März 2019 um 12:04 Uhr schrieb Sönke Liebau >> > > > > > > > > > > <soenke.lie...@opencore.com.invalid>: >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Mirko! >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > For me there are three main questions that we should >> > > > consider >> > > > > > > > around >> > > > > > > > > > > > the workflow. If I am missing something, please >> shout >> > > out, >> > > > I am >> > > > > > > by >> > > > > > > > no >> > > > > > > > > > > > means an expert on this! >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Do we want an "accepted" state that means someone >> > > > looked at >> > > > > > > this >> > > > > > > > > > > > ticket and it has merit and is not just a user >> question >> > > > that is >> > > > > > > > better >> > > > > > > > > > > > placed on the mailing list/far too broad/... ? >> > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Do we want a "reviewable" state? >> > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Do we want an explicit "closed" state? The >> current >> > > > workflow >> > > > > > > has >> > > > > > > > > > > > "resolved" which means something has been committed >> to >> > > > address >> > > > > > > this >> > > > > > > > > > > > issue and now the original reporter should check >> > whether >> > > > the >> > > > > > > issue >> > > > > > > > > > > > itself has been fixed and transition the issue to >> > either >> > > > > > "closed" >> > > > > > > > or >> > > > > > > > > > > > "reopened". >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > I do like the idea of 1, as it gives us a better >> option >> > > of >> > > > > > > keeping >> > > > > > > > > > > > track of whether or not a ticket has been triaged >> > > already. >> > > > If >> > > > > > you >> > > > > > > > have >> > > > > > > > > > > > some time on your hands and want to fix an issue >> > picking >> > > > from >> > > > > > > > > > > > "accepted" is easier than potentially sifting >> through >> > 10 >> > > > "open" >> > > > > > > > ones >> > > > > > > > > > > > until you find an actionable one. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > I think 2 is really useful and we should definitely >> > have >> > > > that. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 3 I'm on the fence about, personally I think if the >> > > commit >> > > > > > > doesn't >> > > > > > > > > > > > meet what the ticket was about then this should have >> > been >> > > > > > > addressed >> > > > > > > > > > > > during review. I think this workflow is more suited >> > for a >> > > > > > > > > > > > customer-service provider situation where the >> customer >> > > > needs to >> > > > > > > > sign >> > > > > > > > > > > > off on a solution. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts? >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, >> > > > > > > > > > > > Sönke >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:38 AM Mirko Kämpf < >> > > > > > > > mirko.kae...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Sönke, >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I like the proposal to use a workflow with an >> > explicit >> > > > state >> > > > > > > for >> > > > > > > > > > > > > "reviewable" issues. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, I do not know how to set it up or >> how >> > to >> > > > > > request >> > > > > > > > this >> > > > > > > > > > > > change. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 ---> Mesos Workflow: >> https://imgur.com/a/6zWFK4e >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Am Mo., 4. März 2019 um 11:33 Uhr schrieb Sönke >> > Liebau >> > > > > > > > > > > > > <soenke.lie...@opencore.com.invalid>: >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bumping to see if really no one has an opinion >> on >> > > this >> > > > :) >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 3:53 PM Sönke Liebau < >> > > > > > > > > > > > soenke.lie...@opencore.com> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah, apologies, wasn't aware of that. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Default Workflow: https://imgur.com/a/EfKcOfL >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mesos Workflow: https://imgur.com/a/6zWFK4e >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sönke >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 3:48 PM Lars Francke < >> > > > > > > > > > > lars.fran...@gmail.com >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Mailing list swallows attachments Sönke, >> can >> > you >> > > > host >> > > > > > > them >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > externally?) >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 3:33 PM Sönke Liebau >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <soenke.lie...@opencore.com.invalid> wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our Jira currently is still operating with >> > the >> > > > > > default >> > > > > > > > workflow >> > > > > > > > > > > > (see >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1_default_workflow.png) which is fairly >> > basic. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally I'd like something along the >> lines >> > > of >> > > > > > > > "reviewable" >> > > > > > > > > > > or >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "patch available" to symbolize >> > > > > > > < >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://maps.google.com/?q=%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E+%22patch+available%22+to+symbolize&entry=gmail&source=g >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > that this is waiting for >> > > > > > > > someone >> > > > > > > > > > > > to >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > take a look at. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, it might be an option to triage >> issues >> > up >> > > > > > front, >> > > > > > > > i.e. >> > > > > > > > > > > have >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > someone look at it and evalua >> > > > > > > < >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://maps.google.com/?q=%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E+%3E+someone+look+at+it+and+evalua&entry=gmail&source=g >> > > > > > >te >> > > > > > > whether this actually is >> > > > > > > > an >> > > > > > > > > > > > issue or >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not appropriate. Granted, this can also be >> > > > covered by >> > > > > > > > closing >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > after looking at them, but that misses t >> > > > > > > < >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://maps.google.com/?q=%3E+%3E+after+looking+at+them,+but+that+misses+t&entry=gmail&source=g >> > > > > > >he >> > > > > > > explicit >> > > > > > > > information >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whether someone already looked at it, if >> it >> > is >> > > > still >> > > > > > > > open. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking through workflows that other >> projects >> > > > > > adopted, >> > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > > Mesos >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workflow closely resembles what I wrote ab >> > > > > > > > > > > < >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://maps.google.com/?q=%3E+workflow+closely+resembles+what+I+wrote+ab&entry=gmail&source=g >> > > > > > > > >ove >> > > > > > > > > > > (see >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2_mesos_workflow.png) >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking through some other projects the >> > "patch >> > > > > > > > available-reop >> > > > > > > > > > > < >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://maps.google.com/?q=some+other+projects+the+%22patch+available-reop&entry=gmail&source=g >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > en >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible" workflow seems to be fairly >> common. >> > > A >> > > > lot >> > > > > > of >> > > > > > > > > > > > variations >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just differ by the way they name the >> "patch >> > > > > > available" >> > > > > > > > state. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts on the route we want to take? >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sönke >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sönke Liebau >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Partner >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tel. +49 179 7940878 <+49%20179%207940878> >> > > > > > > <+49%20179%207940878> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 8 >> - >> > > 22880 >> > > > > > > Wedel - >> > > > > > > > > > > Germany >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sönke Liebau >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Partner >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tel. +49 179 7940878 <+49%20179%207940878> >> > > > > > > <+49%20179%207940878> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 8 - >> > 22880 >> > > > > > Wedel - >> > > > > > > > Germany >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dr. rer. nat. Mirko Kämpf >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Müchelner Str. 23 >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 06259 Frankleben >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > > > > > Sönke Liebau >> > > > > > > > > > > > Partner >> > > > > > > > > > > > Tel. +49 179 7940878 <+49%20179%207940878> >> > > > > > <+49%20179%207940878> >> > > > > > > > > > > > OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 8 - >> 22880 >> > > > Wedel - >> > > > > > > > Germany >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Dr. rer. nat. Mirko Kämpf >> > > > > > > > > > > Müchelner Str. 23 >> > > > > > > > > > > 06259 Frankleben >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > Sönke Liebau >> > > > > > > > Partner >> > > > > > > > Tel. +49 179 7940878 <+49%20179%207940878> >> > > > > > > > OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 8 - 22880 Wedel >> - >> > > > Germany >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > Sönke Liebau >> > > > Partner >> > > > Tel. +49 179 7940878 >> > > > OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 8 - 22880 Wedel - >> Germany >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
