I propose to eject hbase-native-client to GitHub on HBASE-19419

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote:

> No problem, please commit it.
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Guanghao Zhang <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Andrew, HBASE-18626 is a document fix for the incompatible change about
>> the
>> replication TableCFs' config. Can we include it for 1.4? Thanks.
>>
>> 2017-12-01 9:19 GMT+08:00 Stack <[email protected]>:
>>
>> > I pushed HBASE-18233. Thanks for finding the issue and patience waiting
>> on
>> > fix Andrew.
>> > St.Ack
>> >
>> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > No problem, committing it now
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Sergey Soldatov <
>> > [email protected]
>> > > >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Andrew,
>> > > >
>> > > > Can we include HBASE-19393 as well? Quite annoying issue and very
>> > simple
>> > > > fix.
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks,
>> > > > Sergey
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>> [email protected]>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Not too late, no
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Fix is up if it is not too late Andrew.
>> > > > > > St.Ack
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Stack <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Andrew, your testing has turned up an issue in HBASE-18233.
>> It is
>> > > > > present
>> > > > > > > in the 1.4 candidate patch and in 1.3. The failure is
>> > > intermittent. I
>> > > > > am
>> > > > > > > working on a fix but want to make sure I have it right. So, I
>> > > > withdraw
>> > > > > my
>> > > > > > > request that 1.4 include it.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > > > S
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>> > > [email protected]
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> TestGlobalThrottler is a problem stemming from the revert of
>> > > > > HBASE-9465
>> > > > > > >> ​ on branch-1.4. The test came in on HBASE-17314 so I'll also
>> > > revert
>> > > > > > that
>> > > > > > >> from branch-1.4. For more on this see HBASE-19381
>> > > > > > >> ​
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>> > > > [email protected]>
>> > > > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> > The TestEndToEndSplitTransaction failure will be fixed by
>> > > > > HBASE-19379.
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > The TestGlobalThrottler issue is a hang, which is probably
>> why
>> > > it
>> > > > > > >> slipped
>> > > > > > >> > through the cracks. I went back 32 commits from head and it
>> > was
>> > > > > still
>> > > > > > >> > stuck. 64 commits back it's good. Somewhere in between.
>> Will
>> > get
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> > offending commit shortly.
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>> > > > > [email protected]>
>> > > > > > >> > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> Thanks. I'll take a look. They were passing for me before
>> I
>> > > went
>> > > > > out
>> > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> vacation.
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Stack <[email protected]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >>> Thanks.
>> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > > > > >> >>> BTW, I noticed this morning that TestGlobalThrottler and
>> > > > > > >> >>> TestEndToEndSplitTransaction
>> > > > > > >> >>> fail locally for me and up on jenkins as part of hadoopqa
>> > runs
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >>> recent 1.4 runs.
>> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > > > > >> >>> I tried to poke at why. They seem fine in 1.2, 1.3, and
>> 2.0.
>> > > Got
>> > > > > > >> >>> distracted
>> > > > > > >> >>> and got no further than this....
>> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > > > > >> >>> S
>> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > > > > >> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>> > > > > > [email protected]>
>> > > > > > >> >>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > Ok, no problem.
>> > > > > > >> >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Stack <
>> [email protected]>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > May I get HBASE-18233 into 1.4.0 Andrew? It is in 1.2
>> > and
>> > > > 1.3.
>> > > > > > >> >>> Waiting on
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > hadoopqa run. Would be good to have it all up and
>> down
>> > > > > branch-1.
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > Thanks Sir,
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > St.Ack
>> > > > > > >> >>> > >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Peter Somogyi <
>> > > > > > >> >>> [email protected]>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >>> > >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > HBASE-19188 was just resolved. :)
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>> > > > > > >> >>> [email protected]>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > I come back to find HBASE-19188 is a blocker. :-/
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > Need to resolve it
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Sean Busbey <
>> > > > > > >> [email protected]
>> > > > > > >> >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > thanks for all the work as RM on this Andrew!
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Andrew
>> Purtell
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > Everything is in and ready to go. I'm out
>> next
>> > > week
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > Thanksgiving
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > holiday, but will be back first week in
>> > December.
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > Here is what I anticipate:
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >    - December 4
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >       - 1.4.0 RC0 binaries will be available.
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >       - Voting begins.
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >       - Preflight checks will include RAT
>> check,
>> > > > > release
>> > > > > > >> >>> audits,
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > and
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > 25
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >       iterations of the unit test suite.
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >    - December 5 - 8
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >       - 24 hours ITBLL
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >       - PE and YCSB on cluster perf
>> comparison
>> > > with
>> > > > > 1.2
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >       - PE and YCSB single server profiling
>> with
>> > > > JFR,
>> > > > > > >> >>> comparison
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > with
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > 1.2
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >    - December 11
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >       - Voting concludes
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >       - Release, or RC1 depending on testing
>> > > outcome
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >       - December 18
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >       - RC1 voting concludes and release, if
>> we
>> > > > need a
>> > > > > > RC1
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > From now until the 1.4.0 release, please
>> refrain
>> > > > from
>> > > > > > >> >>> committing
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > potentially destabilizing changes or changes
>> to
>> > > > public
>> > > > > > >> APIs
>> > > > > > >> >>> to
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > branch-1.4.
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Andrew
>> > Purtell <
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > [email protected]>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> On HBASE-19232 we discuss testing the shaded
>> > > client
>> > > > > > using
>> > > > > > >> >>> YCSB,
>> > > > > > >> >>> > so
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > I'll
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> use it to sanity check the shaded client as
>> > well
>> > > as
>> > > > > > >> >>> complete a
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > perf
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> comparison with 1.2.
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Andrew
>> > Purtell <
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > [email protected]>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> I'll do a PE comparison between 1.4.0 and
>> 1.3
>> > > > and/or
>> > > > > > >> 1.2.
>> > > > > > >> >>> Maybe
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > YSCB
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > too
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> if I have time. Good idea, thanks.
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > On Nov 11, 2017, at 5:05 AM, Yu Li <
>> > > > > > [email protected]>
>> > > > > > >> >>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > Great to know, really good progress!
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > It seems we don't do performance
>> comparison
>> > > with
>> > > > > > >> current
>> > > > > > >> >>> > stable
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > release
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > when releasing the first RC of a new
>> branch,
>> > > but
>> > > > > > >> should
>> > > > > > >> >>> we do
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > to
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > avoid
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > issues like HBASE-14460 (write
>> performance
>> > > > > > regression
>> > > > > > >> >>> from
>> > > > > > >> >>> > 0.98
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > 1.1)?
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > This is a must-have for us to decide new
>> > > version
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >>> product
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > env
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > here,
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> and
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > I wonder whether this applies for most
>> users
>> > > > > (please
>> > > > > > >> >>> forgive
>> > > > > > >> >>> > my
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> ignorance
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > if there's any existing policy for this).
>> > > > Thanks.
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > bq. Back when we first discussed
>> branching
>> > for
>> > > > 1.4
>> > > > > > Yu
>> > > > > > >> Li
>> > > > > > >> >>> > asked
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> this...
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > Thanks for remembering this and keeping
>> the
>> > > > > promise
>> > > > > > >> boss
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > (smile).
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > Best Regards,
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > Yu
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> On 11 November 2017 at 03:30, Andrew
>> > Purtell
>> > > <
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > [email protected]
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> The march to 1.4.0 is progressing.
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> I've run the unit test suite on a C4
>> class
>> > > AWS
>> > > > > > >> instance
>> > > > > > >> >>> 25
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > times
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> there
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> are no failures. This is ongoing. I'm
>> > aiming
>> > > > for
>> > > > > > 100
>> > > > > > >> >>> runs.
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> Fix versions are now set up for
>> > constructing
>> > > a
>> > > > > > >> >>> reasonable
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > change
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > log.
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> With HBASE-19232 applied a build with
>> > release
>> > > > > > audits
>> > > > > > >> >>> enabled
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > will
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > pass.
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> I backported error-prone support
>> yesterday
>> > > and
>> > > > > will
>> > > > > > >> now
>> > > > > > >> >>> look
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > at
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> checkstyle
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> and error-prone analyses for important
>> > > issues.
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> I'll probably do HBASE-19238 before
>> 1.4.0
>> > > goes
>> > > > > out
>> > > > > > so
>> > > > > > >> >>> that
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > neat
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > utility
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> will be available.
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> Back when we first discussed branching
>> for
>> > > 1.4
>> > > > Yu
>> > > > > > Li
>> > > > > > >> >>> asked
>> > > > > > >> >>> > for
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > this:
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> One naive question here: from the book
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> <http://hbase.apache.org/book.
>> > > > > > html#hbase.versioning
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >>> we
>> > > > > > >> >>> > will
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > add
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> functionality (in a
>> backwards-compatible
>> > > > manner)
>> > > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> >>> minor
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > versions,
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> but
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> it
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> seems we don't have any one-line
>> > description
>> > > > on
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > differences
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > (what
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> main functionalities have been added)
>> > > between
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > branch-1.1/1.2/1.3/1.4
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> so
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> user could better decide which version
>> to
>> > > > > > >> >>> choose/upgrade.
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > Should
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > we
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> add some explicit document on this? Or
>> > > release
>> > > > > > note
>> > > > > > >> of
>> > > > > > >> >>> the
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > first
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> release
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> for each branch is enough? Thanks.
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> and I still agree to do it. I'll write
>> it
>> > up
>> > > > > while
>> > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > >> >>> RC is
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > under
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> evaluation.
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> ITBLL and replication testing to be
>> > performed
>> > > > on
>> > > > > a
>> > > > > > >> small
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > cluster
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > once
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> we
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> have the RC binaries.
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> Anything else? (Within reason...)
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> --
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> Best regards,
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> Andrew
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> Words like orphans lost among the
>> > crosstalk,
>> > > > > > meaning
>> > > > > > >> >>> torn
>> > > > > > >> >>> > from
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > truth's
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> decrepit hands
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>   - A23, Crosstalk
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> --
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> Best regards,
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> Andrew
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk,
>> > > > meaning
>> > > > > > torn
>> > > > > > >> >>> from
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > truth's
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> decrepit hands
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>    - A23, Crosstalk
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > Andrew
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk,
>> > > meaning
>> > > > > > torn
>> > > > > > >> >>> from
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > truth's
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > decrepit hands
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >    - A23, Crosstalk
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > --
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > Andrew
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk,
>> meaning
>> > > > torn
>> > > > > > from
>> > > > > > >> >>> > truth's
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > decrepit hands
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > >    - A23, Crosstalk
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > >
>> > > > > > >> >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > --
>> > > > > > >> >>> > Best regards,
>> > > > > > >> >>> > Andrew
>> > > > > > >> >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning
>> torn
>> > > from
>> > > > > > >> truth's
>> > > > > > >> >>> > decrepit hands
>> > > > > > >> >>> >    - A23, Crosstalk
>> > > > > > >> >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> --
>> > > > > > >> >> Best regards,
>> > > > > > >> >> Andrew
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn
>> > from
>> > > > > > truth's
>> > > > > > >> >> decrepit hands
>> > > > > > >> >>    - A23, Crosstalk
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > --
>> > > > > > >> > Best regards,
>> > > > > > >> > Andrew
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn
>> from
>> > > > > truth's
>> > > > > > >> > decrepit hands
>> > > > > > >> >    - A23, Crosstalk
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> --
>> > > > > > >> Best regards,
>> > > > > > >> Andrew
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn
>> from
>> > > > truth's
>> > > > > > >> decrepit hands
>> > > > > > >>    - A23, Crosstalk
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > Andrew
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from
>> > truth's
>> > > > > decrepit hands
>> > > > >    - A23, Crosstalk
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Best regards,
>> > > Andrew
>> > >
>> > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
>> > > decrepit hands
>> > >    - A23, Crosstalk
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrew
>
> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> decrepit hands
>    - A23, Crosstalk
>



-- 
Best regards,
Andrew

Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
decrepit hands
   - A23, Crosstalk

Reply via email to