...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: apache binary distributions
Again mixed. Let's substitute a real case.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2015, at 6:21 AM, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote:
(Please note mixed private/public lists)
On 8/25/15 5:17 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
[ ... ]
package-name
(Please note mixed private/public lists)
On 8/25/15 5:17 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
So there is - to my mind - the obvious stuff:
1. The package description should ACK our marks. End of Story there.
2. The package description should call out those cases where there are
significant
, August 28, 2015 16:21
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: apache binary distributions
Our trademark is abused by LibreOffice. How do we find a policy where can get
Linux distributions near compliance
/me notes the mixed public and private lists
I.e. assume you're a developer or sysadmin who is *not* an Apache
committer. You know you need to get a software project management tool
for the linux machines you maintain, and you've heard of something
called Maven.
- What is the actual
[mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 14:35
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: tradema...@apache.org; stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: apache binary distributions
Again mixed. Let's substitute a real case.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2015, at 6:21 AM
, 2015 14:35
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: tradema...@apache.org; stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: apache binary distributions
Again mixed. Let's substitute a real case.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2015, at 6:21 AM, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote:
(Please note
Again mixed. Let's substitute a real case.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2015, at 6:21 AM, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote:
(Please note mixed private/public lists)
On 8/25/15 5:17 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
So there is - to my mind - the obvious stuff:
1. The package
...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: apache binary distributions
Again mixed. Let's substitute a real case.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2015, at 6:21 AM, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote:
(Please note mixed private/public lists)
On 8/25/15 5:17 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote
dennis.hamil...@acm.org
Subject: Re: apache binary distributions
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Stephen Connolly
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote:
But I am still awaiting guidance from brand on whether a technical
name usage - e.g. installer package name - is a use of the mark.
Makes two of us
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Stephen Connolly
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote:
But I am still awaiting guidance from brand on whether a technical name
usage - e.g. installer package name - is a use of the mark.
Makes two of us. I see a log of good consensus on this thread which helps
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:06 AM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
There are some special things here we do have absolute control over. If a
project wants to provide the 'official' build, why not start signing the
.jar?
This! This is such a great idea. Would love this to be weaved
So there is - to my mind - the obvious stuff:
1. The package description should ACK our marks. End of Story there.
2. The package description should call out those cases where there are
significant deviations from the official distributions. Significant
deviations will be determined by the
On 22/08/2015 04:37, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
Cool.
I can't find info on how much it costs ASF, any pointers before embarking
on 100+ artifact signing spree... ;-)
With my infra hat on...
The short answer is 'Don't worry about it and get signing.'
The longer answer is that if a project wants to
Cool.
I can't find info on how much it costs ASF, any pointers before embarking
on 100+ artifact signing spree... ;-)
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:35 AM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org
wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:06 AM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
There are some special things here we do have absolute control over. If a
project wants to provide the 'official' build, why not start signing the
.jar?
Good idea, but to be practical to users, the certificate for
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:06 AM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
There are some special things here we do have absolute control over. If a
project wants to provide the 'official' build, why not start
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Stephen Connolly
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote:
...Well I actually have concerns about the maven that debian is publishing.
There are some quite significant - in my view - deviations from our Maven.
For me, the majority of the concerns could be
Am 18.08.2015 18:46, schrieb Marvin Humphrey:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Kalle Korhonen
So what if a project (members) does not vote but unofficially
releases binary executable packages, perhaps along with source to some
other location than /dist/? Clearly, it's not an official release
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 19, 2015, at 1:46, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com
wrote:
Well I actually have concerns about the maven that debian is publishing.
There are some quite significant - in my view - deviations from our Maven
Can you be specific? Should you
There is a reason that these distributions are not called hadoop in the product
name. There is no cloudera hadoop. Nor MapR hadoop.
It is a fine line to acknowledge provenance and give proper credit but not
claim to be identical.
On the other hand, hive and pig and zookeeper in the
-to-heart with the producer of Joe's
Maven about clearing up the confusion.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 06:27
To: Incubator General general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: apache binary
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Stephen Connolly
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote:
We could define a hierarchy of right to use the mark: pmc has ultimate
right, if the pmc are not producing a packaging for that system then the
developers of the packaging system have the right to define
We could define a hierarchy of right to use the mark: pmc has ultimate
right, if the pmc are not producing a packaging for that system then the
developers of the packaging system have the right to define who can use the
mark in relation to their packaging system only.
The aim here would be to
I was indeed talking of publishing the original material, released properly
from Apache but with some minor changes to fit into the SteveNick
Platform (whatever that might be). I think that is analogous...
So, if we agree that is all the same... minor alterations of official
releases
That
I might add also that our integration tests should pass for patched
releases (if you want to call the package maven)
Let's take this straw man out for a walk:
Microsoft produce a maven.msi and it is available for download on a page
called how to get maven on the Microsoft website. The
Perhaps, the maven pmc could decree: if you are making a convenience
installer of maven for an OS where the maven pmc does not create a
convenience installer, you may use maven as the packaging name provided
the description clarifies it is a custom build and provides an ack of our
marks. Also the
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 at 02:47 Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:40 AM, Stephen Connolly
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes that was my analysis of the question: If I decide to produce an
unofficial binary release of Maven without the approval of
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com
wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Luke Han luke...@gmail.com wrote:
There's one discussion in Kylin community about to add binary
package in release, people are really would like to have one:
of the (hypothetical) project.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:mar...@rectangular.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 09:46
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: apache binary distributions
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Kalle Korhonen
So what if a project
it Maven then the remainder of
the PMC would be responsible for sending me a CD.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:mar...@rectangular.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 09:46
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: apache binary distributions
On Tue
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
Well, if Debian can publish their built Apache Maven as maven and
SteveNick can't publish their built Apache Maven as maven, then the
inescapable question is; On what non-arbitrary grounds is one acceptable
and the
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com
wrote:
However, if SteveNick are Apache project contributors publishing
unreleased
code and making an end run around Apache release policy, there's greater
cause
for concern.
On the other hand, if SteveNick are
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Kalle Korhonen
So what if a project (members) does not vote but unofficially
releases binary executable packages, perhaps along with source to some
other location than /dist/? Clearly, it's not an official release by Apache
policy but there the bits are in the
Am 17.08.2015 10:45, schrieb Branko Čibej:
[...]
So wait ... If the Subversion PMC releases source, and, say, Debian
creates a binary package called 'subversion-x.y.z' ... you're saying
that's trademark infringement and we should be telling all the people
who produce binary packages to stop
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote:
...My take so far is: The PMC decides upon if they want to allow for that or
not. So the Subversion PMC could forbid the redistribution of packages named
subversion-x.y.z... But that does not mean they have to...
On 17 August 2015 at 09:53, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote:
Am 17.08.2015 10:45, schrieb Branko Čibej:
[...]
So wait ... If the Subversion PMC releases source, and, say, Debian
creates a binary package called 'subversion-x.y.z' ... you're saying
that's trademark infringement and
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org
wrote:
Now that takeaway from this thread for me so far is this: in order for the
trademark enforcement to be invoked there has to be a
Shaposhnik
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 21:11
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: apache binary distributions
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
[ ... ]
This thread is long and bendy. What is it that you want to achieve?
Three things
On 8/16/15 9:05 PM, David Nalley wrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org
wrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org
wrote:
The Hadoop PMC is
On 16.08.2015 21:33, Ted Dunning wrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org
wrote:
The Hadoop PMC is utterly free to produce a Hadoop RPM with Hadoop in it
that corresponds to an Apache Hadoop release. Having project Foo
produce a
release of Bar, Baz and
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org
wrote:
The Hadoop PMC is utterly free to produce a Hadoop RPM with
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote:
Seems like for the past two weeks I only have weekends to respond :-(
Apologies for the delay on this thread.
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:
1) The concept of a brand
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org
wrote:
The Hadoop PMC is utterly free to produce a Hadoop RPM with Hadoop in it
that corresponds to an Apache Hadoop release. Having project Foo
produce a
release of Bar, Baz and Pigdog is pretty far off the
Seems like for the past two weeks I only have weekends to respond :-(
Apologies for the delay on this thread.
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:
1) The concept of a brand covering some artifact doesn't come into play
at
all. Instead, there are two things
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org
wrote:
The Hadoop PMC is utterly free to produce a Hadoop RPM with Hadoop in it
that corresponds to an Apache Hadoop release. Having project
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote:
Now that takeaway from this thread for me so far is this: in order for the
trademark enforcement to be invoked there has to be a legitimate concern
from the PMC. The foundation is not in a business of blatant brand
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 6:30 AM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On Aug 9, 2015 8:33 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
On 8/6/15 4:29 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
Am 06.08.2015 08:22, schrieb Niclas Hedhman:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org
wrote:
I honestly see no problem with that, again provided that the artifact
can
NOT
be confused with the one coming from Apache
On 8/9/15 9:37 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:
The question is: do we have ASF-wide trademark guidelines or do
we allow each PMC to make those as they go.
Um, yes, we do:
https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Luke Han luke...@gmail.com wrote:
There's one discussion in Kylin community about to add binary
package in release, people are really would like to have one:
There's one discussion in Kylin community about to add binary
package in release, people are really would like to have one:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-kylin-dev/201508.mbox/%3CCAKmQrOZ_MFUyF_y7HXE7iVMCfJHuuOFuU4T8ibsPWfnw0z2Opw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
For some reason, people
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org
wrote:
...is Apache Brand meant to protect *any* possible
On Aug 9, 2015 8:33 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org
wrote:
...is Apache Brand meant to protect *any* possible
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote:
...do we aspire to have a monopoly on certain
binary convenience artifacts? IOW, if a Hadoop PMC blessed and RPM
as one of those artifacts, does it mean that only that RPM (however
potentially screwed up it is from
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote:
...is Apache Brand meant to protect *any* possible object/binary
artifact or only those that PMC actually care about?...
IMO any
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:
Roman,
That was a *really* long email.
Well, I do those from time to time ;-)
1) The concept of a brand covering some artifact doesn't come into play at
all. Instead, there are two things that happen. The first is
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org
wrote:
...is Apache Brand meant to protect *any* possible
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:
Roman,
That was a *really* long email.
Well, I do those from time to time ;-)
1) The concept of a brand covering some artifact doesn't
Roman,
That was a *really* long email.
Some general responses.
1) The concept of a brand covering some artifact doesn't come into play at
all. Instead, there are two things that happen. The first is that the PMC
approves releases which defines each such release as an Apache release.
The second
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote:
...is Apache Brand meant to protect *any* possible object/binary
artifact or only those that PMC actually care about?...
IMO any object/binary created from our source code has to be clearly
identified as not coming
Am 07.08.2015 02:50, schrieb Roman Shaposhnik:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote:
[...]
The assumption that you're making is a reasonable one: only PMC is
authorized to make work available (which will mean that everything
else is derived work). That
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org
wrote:
I honestly see no problem with that, again provided that the artifact can
NOT
be confused with the one coming from Apache project.
I think the problem lies in Trademarks. Debian's Tomcat7 is labeled
Servlet and JSP
: Thursday, August 6, 2015 17:51
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: apache binary distributions
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote:
[ ... ]
if PMC produced a release then binary convenience
artifacts are easy: anything that corresponds to that release
Then throw in an extra special case, Apache ABC making a release of Apache
XYZ ;-) Not common, but AFAIK, nothing but convention (go over and do it
in the name of XYZ instead) stopping that... But say XYZ has lost its PMC
and is destined for Attic, and ABC is in desperate need...
On Fri, Aug 7,
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote:
Am 06.08.2015 02:43, schrieb Roman Shaposhnik:
[...]
As you probably remember we've discussed this issue not that long time
ago: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.incubator.general/49852
The consensus there is
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org
wrote:
Let us put that last part a step up... Let us assume someone takes one
of
the released sources of one of the java projects out there, makes
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote:
Am 06.08.2015 08:22, schrieb Niclas Hedhman:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org
wrote:
I honestly see no problem with that, again provided that the artifact can
NOT
be confused
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org
wrote:
I honestly see no problem with that, again provided that the artifact can
NOT
be confused with the one coming from Apache project.
I think
Am 06.08.2015 02:43, schrieb Roman Shaposhnik:
[...]
As you probably remember we've discussed this issue not that long time
ago: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.incubator.general/49852
The consensus there is that as long as you're communicating intent
clearly you can let downstream
Am 06.08.2015 08:22, schrieb Niclas Hedhman:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org
wrote:
I honestly see no problem with that, again provided that the artifact can
NOT
be confused with the one coming from Apache project.
I think the problem lies in
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org
wrote:
Let us put that last part a step up... Let us assume someone takes one
of
the released sources of one of the java projects out there, makes maven
artifacts out of it and publishes them at maven central. Is that
On Aug 5, 2015, at 5:44 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote:
It was also mentioned here, that for example publishing snapshot
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote:
It was also mentioned here, that for example publishing snapshot builds to
maven central is not allowed. I guess in the release document they are
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote:
Am 03.08.2015 21:46, schrieb David Nalley:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org
wrote:
Hi all,
some of the general discussion recently made me wonder about one point
with
regards to
sorry, I really tried, but it seems google is not a suitable tool to
search through the incubator general list. It shows by far not all
results it should show. There is a hint that some results are not shown
because of privacy protection. Searching for my own name for exmaple
shows only a
Am 03.08.2015 21:46, schrieb David Nalley:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote:
Hi all,
some of the general discussion recently made me wonder about one point with
regards to binary distributions. It was pointed out, that a binary
distribution of a source
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote:
...It was pointed out, that a binary
distribution of a source code release has to be handled like a release
itself, and that there should be no download source of it outside of apache.
This seems to be one
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote:
It was also mentioned here, that for example publishing snapshot builds to
maven central is not allowed. I guess in the release document they are
basically to be handled as nightly builds and as such not for the general
OK, I’ll bite. Do you have links to where you got this information?
-Alex
On 8/3/15, 2:55 AM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote:
Hi all,
some of the general discussion recently made me wonder about one point
with regards to binary distributions. It was pointed out, that a binary
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote:
Hi all,
some of the general discussion recently made me wonder about one point with
regards to binary distributions. It was pointed out, that a binary
distribution of a source code release has to be handled like a
80 matches
Mail list logo
