[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2312?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12846261#action_12846261
]
Jason Rutherglen commented on LUCENE-2312:
--
I think the easiest way to test out t
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2324?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12846220#action_12846220
]
Jason Rutherglen commented on LUCENE-2324:
--
Michael, Agreed, can you outline how
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2326?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12846189#action_12846189
]
Uwe Schindler edited comment on LUCENE-2326 at 3/16/10 11:17 PM:
---
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2326?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12846198#action_12846198
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-2326:
---
I added one thing (as discussed with rmuir)
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2326?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12846189#action_12846189
]
Uwe Schindler edited comment on LUCENE-2326 at 3/16/10 11:01 PM:
---
Duh -- I meant to reply to Hoss' proposal, below:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Michael McCandless
wrote:
> +1
>
> I like this proposal!
>
> I agree we should not preclude the future (modules), let's just not
> hold up dev today until we solve it.
>
> I agree your side by side solution would a
What about tagging and branching? When we cut a Lucene release we also
tag Solr, even though it's not being released?
Michael
On 3/16/10 3:47 PM, Michael McCandless wrote:
But it's actually the reverse? Solr depends on Lucene but not vice/versa.
(If instead I proposed making Solr a subdir
+1
I like this proposal!
I agree we should not preclude the future (modules), let's just not
hold up dev today until we solve it.
I agree your side by side solution would allow for us to later factor
up modules (eg analyzers).
Mike
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Michael McCandless
wrote:
>
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2326?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-2326:
--
Attachment: LUCENE-2326.patch
Here the patch, before applying do the following (in main checko
But it's actually the reverse? Solr depends on Lucene but not vice/versa.
(If instead I proposed making Solr a subdir of Lucene then I'd agree)
So... if you checkout only lucene, you can cd there and do all you do
today with Lucene ("ant test", "ant dist", "svn diff", etc.).
If you checkout
Dev is now merged with Solr and Lucene -- that has already passed. If
that will scare customers away, that's a risk we take -- the benefits
of merged dev outweigh that, in my opinion.
The incremental risk that the details of our svn URLs will scare
people away seems negligible.
And we can always
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Jake Mannix
> wrote:
> > I'm not concerned with casual downloaders. I'm talking
>
> about the companies and people who may or may not be
>
> interested in making multi-million dollar decisions regarding
>
>
I have to agree w/ Jake that putting Lucene under Solr gives the impression
as if suddenly Lucene became dependent on it ... and for really no good
reasons. Are we making that decision to simplify the build of Solr? What are
the problems Solr faces today w.r.t. its build and using a Lucene release
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Jake Mannix wrote:
> I'm not concerned with casual downloaders. I'm talking about the companies
> and people who
> may or may not be interested in making multi-million dollar decisions
> regarding using or
> not using Lucene or Solr.
Heh - multi-million dollar de
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>
> > Chiming in just a bit here - isn't there any concern that independent of
> > whether or not people "can"
> > build lucene without checking out solr, the mere fact that Lucene will be
> > effectively a "subdirectory"
> > of solr... is the
Where would the modules live?
I'm not sure if I sent it on this thread or somewhere else, but what about
my proposal to have all three sitting under their own directories, w/ their
own trunk/branch/tags, and if it's easier for dev then put all three under
one root (for permission management maybe)
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Jake Mannix wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Michael McCandless
> wrote:
>>
>> If we move lucene under Solr's existing svn path, ie:
>>
>> /solr/trunk/lucene
>
> Chiming in just a bit here - isn't there any concern that independent of
> whether or not pe
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Michael McCandless <
luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>
> If we move lucene under Solr's existing svn path, ie:
>
> /solr/trunk/lucene
Chiming in just a bit here - isn't there any concern that independent of
whether or not people "can"
build lucene without check
The primary concern seems to be ensuring that, once we
merge svn, one can still checkout & build & run tests/etc for
Lucene alone.
If we move lucene under Solr's existing svn path, ie:
/solr/trunk/lucene
and then fixup solr's build files to go and compile sources from the
lucene dir, run tests
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2324?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12846128#action_12846128
]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-2324:
---
I think we all agree that we want to have a
IRC has been discussed to death at Apache:
http://markmail.org/search/?q=IRC+list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.general
Look for the spikes... like this:
http://markmail.org/search/?q=IRC+list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.general#query:IRC%20list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.general%20date%3A200608%20+page:1+state:
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2324?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12846112#action_12846112
]
Jason Rutherglen commented on LUCENE-2324:
--
Actually TermsHashField doesn't need
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2324?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12846110#action_12846110
]
Jason Rutherglen commented on LUCENE-2324:
--
NormsWriterPerField has a growing nor
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2326?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12846108#action_12846108
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-2326:
+1
This sounds sooo much better
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Michael Busch wrote:
> But at the same time can we make sure that the decisions that are made on
> IRC are still being described in a jira issue?
+1
Any time something is discussed on IRC, it must be summarized on the
lists or in an issue, with the details based
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2324?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12846102#action_12846102
]
Jason Rutherglen commented on LUCENE-2324:
--
Michael,
For LUCENE-2312, I think th
: with, "if id didn't happen on the lists, it didn't happen". Its the same as
+1
But as the IRC channel gets used more and more, it would *also* be nice if
there was an archive of the IRC channel so that there is a place to go
look to understand the back story behind an idea once it's synthesi
On Mar 16, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
> On 03/16/2010 02:57 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>> On Mar 16, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Steven A Rowe wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 03/16/2010 at 6:06 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
>>>
Does anyone know how other projects fold in IRC...?
>>>
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2324?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12846084#action_12846084
]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-2324:
---
Shall we not first try to remove the downst
On 03/16/2010 02:57 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
On Mar 16, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Steven A Rowe wrote:
On 03/16/2010 at 6:06 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
Does anyone know how other projects fold in IRC...?
I gather from the deafening silence that we'll have to figure it out as we
It be very cool to have a searchable archive for the IRC discussions, so +1.
But at the same time can we make sure that the decisions that are made
on IRC are still being described in a jira issue? I don't mean that
people should repeat brainstorming, but if a discussion leads to opening
a Ji
+1, this looks great!
Mike
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Andi Vajda wrote:
>
> On Mar 16, 2010, at 11:47, Steven A Rowe wrote:
>
>> On 03/16/2010 at 6:06 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
>>>
>>> Does anyone know how other projects fold in IRC...?
>>
>> I gather from the deafening silence that w
On Mar 16, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Steven A Rowe wrote:
> On 03/16/2010 at 6:06 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
>> Does anyone know how other projects fold in IRC...?
>
> I gather from the deafening silence that we'll have to figure it out as we
> go...
>
> I think some (not all) of the discomfort ass
On Mar 16, 2010, at 11:47, Steven A Rowe wrote:
On 03/16/2010 at 6:06 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
Does anyone know how other projects fold in IRC...?
I gather from the deafening silence that we'll have to figure it out
as we go...
I think some (not all) of the discomfort associated wi
On 03/16/2010 at 6:06 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
> Does anyone know how other projects fold in IRC...?
I gather from the deafening silence that we'll have to figure it out as we go...
I think some (not all) of the discomfort associated with IRC could be addressed
with a permanent, searchable,
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2324?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12846037#action_12846037
]
Jason Rutherglen commented on LUCENE-2324:
--
Are there going to be issues with the
Hi
My only concern w/ how SVN might end up organized is that I'll still be able
checkout core lucene independently of Solr (and possibly contrib/modules)
and then build and test it. Also a separate project in Eclipse is important
as well.
How about this structure:
/solr/trunk
/lucene/trunk
/modul
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2324?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12846028#action_12846028
]
Jason Rutherglen commented on LUCENE-2324:
--
Carrying over from LUCENE-2312. I'm
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2326?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-2326:
--
Fix Version/s: 3.1
Flex Branch
I think the ideal case for this would be tha
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2310?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12846002#action_12846002
]
Shai Erera commented on LUCENE-2310:
I agree. Then keeping both deprecated and new API
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2326?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12846000#action_12846000
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-2326:
-
I agree i think its nice to see a patch to luce
Remove SVN.exe and revision numbers from build.xml by svn-copy the backwards
branch and linking snowball tests by svn:externals
---
Key: LUCENE-2326
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2312?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12845978#action_12845978
]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-2312:
---
{quote}
think we simply need a way to publi
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2312?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12845971#action_12845971
]
Jason Rutherglen commented on LUCENE-2312:
--
To clarify the above comment, DW's up
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2310?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12845972#action_12845972
]
Chris Male commented on LUCENE-2310:
I recommend we keep it as a List since that facil
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2310?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12845968#action_12845968
]
Shai Erera commented on LUCENE-2310:
That was usually the approach. You provide new me
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2312?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12845969#action_12845969
]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-2312:
---
{quote}
I thought we're moving away from by
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1488?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12845951#action_12845951
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-1488:
-
Thanks for the review Uwe! moving forwards...
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2312?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12845950#action_12845950
]
Jason Rutherglen commented on LUCENE-2312:
--
{quote}The tricky part is to make sur
On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:18 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
> On 03/16/2010 10:09 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Michael Busch wrote:
>>
>>> Also, we're in review-and-commit process, not commit-and-review. Changes
>>> have to be
>>> proposed, discussed and ideally attached t
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2312?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12845943#action_12845943
]
Jason Rutherglen commented on LUCENE-2312:
--
I thought we're moving away from byte
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2310?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12845939#action_12845939
]
Chris Male commented on LUCENE-2310:
{quote}
So overall we agree on the changes that n
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2310?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12845936#action_12845936
]
Shai Erera commented on LUCENE-2310:
I'm sorry for the confusion - I got used to all t
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2098?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12845934#action_12845934
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-2098:
-
I think the best way to proceed would be to mak
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2320?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12845930#action_12845930
]
Shai Erera commented on LUCENE-2320:
But it's MP which requires IW. So how will your p
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2098?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12845919#action_12845919
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-2098:
bq. I think this is why it got sl
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1488?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12845917#action_12845917
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1488:
---
Attribute looks good! I would only fix toSt
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Michael McCandless
wrote:
> I think it like the 1st option best (lucene moves as subdir to solr's
> current trunk SVN path), but I don't feel strongly.
>
> This'd mean one could simply checkout lucene alone and do everything
> you can do today.
>
> But if you check
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1488?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Robert Muir updated LUCENE-1488:
Attachment: LUCENE-1488.patch
uploading a dump of my workspace, so Uwe can review the new attribut
On 03/16/2010 10:09 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Michael Busch wrote:
Also, we're in review-and-commit process, not commit-and-review. Changes have
to be
proposed, discussed and ideally attached to jira as patches first.
Correction, just for the sake of
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Michael Busch wrote:
> Also, we're in review-and-commit process, not commit-and-review. Changes
> have to be
> proposed, discussed and ideally attached to jira as patches first.
Correction, just for the sake of avoiding future confusion (i.e. I'm
not making any
On 03/16/2010 09:05 AM, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
On 2010-03-16 12:29, Mark Miller wrote:
From our perspective, we would have been just as happy with a branch on
my local hard drive! That would have taken longer to setup though.
You could have used git instead. There is a good integration betw
On 2010-03-16 12:29, Mark Miller wrote:
From our perspective, we would have been just as happy with a branch on
my local hard drive! That would have taken longer to setup though.
You could have used git instead. There is a good integration between git
and svn, and it's much easier (a giant u
My snap impression is that moving lucene to a sub-tree
under SOLR would introduce some confusion in the minds
of new folks looking at the code. *We* all know that Lucene
stands by itself, but putting it under a solr makes that less
obvious. I claim that there would be questions like "so can
I just
On Mar 16, 2010, at 3:51 AM, Michael Busch wrote:
> On 3/16/10 12:43 AM, Simon Willnauer wrote:Me too. I don't have the time to
> follow IRC in addition to jira and mailinglists. I know I've been missing
> stuff, because in the past I commented on jira issues and later was told that
> my que
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2098?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12845887#action_12845887
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-2098:
-
Mark did some quick tests and this patch only s
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Simon Willnauer
wrote:
> One more thing which I wonder about even more is that this whole
> merging happens so quickly for reasons I don't see right now. I don't
> want to keep anybody from making progress but it appears like a rush
> to me.
By the way, the seri
On 03/16/2010 07:05 AM, Shalin Shekhar Mangar wrote:
Wow, you guys are moving fast! Thats a good thing.
IRC is fine if you want to discuss something quickly. But it has its
limitations. For example, I cannot follow IRC most of the times
because I'm in a different time zone. But I don't want t
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
> On 03/16/2010 03:43 AM, Simon Willnauer wrote:
>
>>
>> One more thing which I wonder about even more is that this whole
>> merging happens so quickly for reasons I don't see right now. I don't
>> want to keep anybody from making progress but i
I think it like the 1st option best (lucene moves as subdir to solr's
current trunk SVN path), but I don't feel strongly.
This'd mean one could simply checkout lucene alone and do everything
you can do today.
But if you check out solr, you also get a full checkout of lucene, and
solr's build.xml
On 03/16/2010 03:43 AM, Simon Willnauer wrote:
One more thing which I wonder about even more is that this whole
merging happens so quickly for reasons I don't see right now. I don't
want to keep anybody from making progress but it appears like a rush
to me.
Meh - I think your just plain wr
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2098?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12845788#action_12845788
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-2098:
Ahh ok.
Probably we should switc
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Michael Busch wrote:
> On 3/16/10 12:43 AM, Simon Willnauer wrote:
>>
>> If my impression should be wrong or if I miss something please ignore
>> the last paragraph.
>
> I feel exactly like you, Simon. I don't understand the rush. Also, we're
> in review-and-comm
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2098?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12845785#action_12845785
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-2098:
---
bq. Why did this cause Solr to slowdown...?
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2312?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12845780#action_12845780
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-2312:
bq. In thinking about the terms d
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2312?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12845778#action_12845778
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-2312:
{quote}
The prototype I'm experim
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2312?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12845777#action_12845777
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-2312:
bq. The tricky part is to make su
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2098?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12845776#action_12845776
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-2098:
Patch looks like it should be a g
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2098?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-2098:
---
Affects Version/s: (was: 2.9)
3.1
Why did this cause Solr
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2310?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12845771#action_12845771
]
Chris Male commented on LUCENE-2310:
Hi Shai,
{quote}
i like the idea of Document to
Hi,
> And Lucene is on Java 1.5 and should be compiled with an 1.5 compiler,
> where Solr seems to be on 1.6 since yesterday? (Yonik added something
> to common-build.xml). On my development system I have no Java 1.6
> installed at all as default build, I ever use Java 1.5 for building
> Lucene. I
On 3/16/10 12:43 AM, Simon Willnauer wrote:
If my impression should be wrong or if I miss something please ignore
the last paragraph.
I feel exactly like you, Simon. I don't understand the rush. Also,
we're in review-and-commit process, not commit-and-review. Changes have
to be propose
I completely agree with Uwe and Hoss. These questions need to be
addressed first.
I still want to be able to only checkout Lucene code and run the Lucene
build independently from Solr. And Lucene needs to be able to release
without Solr and the branching/tagging needs to support that as Uwe
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I don't want to be against all other developers that voted +1 for the SVN
> "merge", but I am not happy with it. Most importantly for the reasons Hoss
> mentioned:
>
>> : prime-time as the new solr trunk! Lucene and Solr need t
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote:
>>
>> Personally I'd prefer we just stop adding them, and the current ones work
>> their way up like normal if they are so inclined, or the ones that are not
>> even around anymore can just stay as they are.
>>
That sounds reasonable to me too
Hi all,
I don't want to be against all other developers that voted +1 for the SVN
"merge", but I am not happy with it. Most importantly for the reasons Hoss
mentioned:
> : prime-time as the new solr trunk! Lucene and Solr need to move to a
> : common trunk for a host of reasons, including sing
86 matches
Mail list logo
