Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #94219
| Return-Path | <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| X-Original-To | python-list@python.org |
| Delivered-To | python-list@mail.python.org |
| X-Spam-Status | OK 0.000 |
| X-Spam-Evidence | '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'ignored': 0.05; 'rejected': 0.05; 'versions,': 0.05; 'dev': 0.07; 'versions.': 0.07; 'cc:addr:python-list': 0.09; 'fix.': 0.09; 'grep': 0.09; 'may,': 0.09; 'patch.': 0.09; 'ping': 0.09; 'prejudice': 0.09; 'subject:2.7': 0.09; 'bug': 0.10; 'commit': 0.15; '"is': 0.16; '"right"': 0.16; '#python-dev,': 0.16; '(informally)': 0.16; '9:20': 0.16; 'fix,': 0.16; 'irc,': 0.16; 'pitrou,': 0.16; 'presume': 0.16; 'reedy': 0.16; 'ring,': 0.16; 'subject:non': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.16; 'later': 0.16; 'alternate': 0.18; 'stefan': 0.18; '2015': 0.20; 'cc:2**0': 0.20; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.20; 'proposed': 0.20; 'fix': 0.21; 'posted': 0.21; '(the': 0.22; 'fairly': 0.22; 'meant': 0.22; '2.x': 0.22; "aren't": 0.22; 'doc': 0.22; 'feb': 0.23; 'ignored.': 0.23; 'patch': 0.24; 'header:In- Reply-To:1': 0.24; 'url:bugs': 0.24; 'message-id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.27; 'issue,': 0.27; 'went': 0.28; 'looks': 0.29; 'obscure': 0.29; 'solution,': 0.29; 'asked': 0.29; "i'm": 0.30; 'certainly': 0.30; 'anyone': 0.32; 'another': 0.32; 'core': 0.32; 'url:python': 0.33; 'word.': 0.33; 'previous': 0.34; 'received:google.com': 0.35; 'happened': 0.35; 'comment': 0.35; 'but': 0.36; 'too': 0.36; 'should': 0.36; 'there': 0.36; 'url:org': 0.36; 'subject:?': 0.36; 'pm,': 0.36; 'subject:: ': 0.37; 'two': 0.37; 'expect': 0.37; 'missing': 0.37; 'no,': 0.38; 'turned': 0.38; 'mean': 0.38; 'sure': 0.39; 'expressed': 0.39; 'subject:-': 0.39; 'where': 0.40; 'term': 0.60; 'ever': 0.60; 'your': 0.60; 'close': 0.61; 'us.': 0.62; 'here.': 0.62; 'different': 0.63; 'complete': 0.63; 'started.': 0.66; 'frustrated': 0.72; 'jul': 0.72; 'reviewed': 0.72; '3.4': 0.84; 'conversation': 0.84; '2013,': 0.91; 'approach.': 0.91; 'continue.': 0.91; 'defects.': 0.93; 'old.': 0.95 |
| DKIM-Signature | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=GBv2XfMSftdMZQm6FuNFVf8OPz4aSTr9K0EvircSnjU=; b=xnIwqbPPMeQojgOqlmyl4uj9rtQO0D8j1S1qyqF+DGIy9EU/rHxILg04BFIjyWhqzp gEeJUkRNyZ+8KuSFcamVzArAbWQ8U1NwFYm6II0qxgA5eEHbHr5Bmiw4oXBzwv/jcta8 VF3FCunTVZCRiX+cGLTSajgrrAJvhoKCMdrk6v4Lu4yK5t0so6LAc8QuzP8BTqUe73YY 9qwzsZKBvHsW/otr+x2kCMwx2I8sad3rnG2GxJjXqDZOoNjLTO6njV1nsFzxt9EjFM0E 53BtOf7PZBh1VeweP67/IGgNn0ZBO/DGy4SSwyL3He9MSRBDe+PAI+jMbeVor41Jpduo Ba/Q== |
| X-Received | by 10.194.172.130 with SMTP id bc2mr57454870wjc.85.1437376429405; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 00:13:49 -0700 (PDT) |
| MIME-Version | 1.0 |
| In-Reply-To | <moi49a$oe5$1@ger.gmane.org> |
| References | <moenuj$f11$1@ger.gmane.org> <moeqtn$mh0$1@ger.gmane.org> <moeurf$a6f$1@ger.gmane.org> <mailman.695.1437273248.3674.python-list@python.org> <55ab2b73$0$1664$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <CABicbJ+KLfG+egBFT1-5m_8Ft0UEfi6f7cbWPzDFLSWRE2zV5Q@mail.gmail.com> <moi49a$oe5$1@ger.gmane.org> |
| From | Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> |
| Date | Mon, 20 Jul 2015 00:13:09 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? |
| To | Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> |
| Cc | "comp.lang.python" <python-list@python.org> |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=UTF-8 |
| X-BeenThere | python-list@python.org |
| X-Mailman-Version | 2.1.20+ |
| Precedence | list |
| List-Id | General discussion list for the Python programming language <python-list.python.org> |
| List-Unsubscribe | <https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=unsubscribe> |
| List-Archive | <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/> |
| List-Post | <mailto:python-list@python.org> |
| List-Help | <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=help> |
| List-Subscribe | <https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=subscribe> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.774.1437376436.3674.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
| Lines | 53 |
| NNTP-Posting-Host | 2001:888:2000:d::a6 |
| X-Trace | 1437376436 news.xs4all.nl 2940 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:33320 |
| X-Complaints-To | abuse@xs4all.nl |
| Path | csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.stben.net!border1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.lang.python:94219 |
Show key headers only | View raw
I think you're missing the line where I said all the relevant conversation happened in IRC, and that you should refer to logs. On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote: > On 7/19/2015 9:20 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote: > >> Search your logs for https://bugs.python.org/issue17094 >> http://bugs.python.org/issue5315 >> >> I was most frustrated by the first case -- > >> the patch was (informally) rejected > > By 'the patch', I presume you mean current-frames-cleanup.patch > by Stefan Ring, who said it "is certainly not the most complete solution, > but it solves my problem.". It was reviewed a month later by a core dev, who > said it had two defects. Do you expect us to apply defective patches? No, I meant my patch. It was discussed in IRC, and I gave the search term to grep for. (The issue URL.) >> in favor of the "right" fix, > > > "right" is your word. Natali simply uploaded an alternate patch that did not > have the defects cited. It went through 4 versions, two by Pitrou, before > the commit and close 2 months later, with the comment "Hopefully there > aren't any applications relying on the previous behaviour." No, "right" is the word used by members of #python-dev, referrig to Antoine's fix. > Two years later, last May, you proposed and uploaded a patch with what looks > to be a new and different approach. It has been ignored. In the absence of > a core dev focused on 2.7, I expect that this will continue. Too bad you did > not upload it in Feb 2013, before the review and fix started. I'm not sure what you're implying here. It couldn't be helped. >> and http://bugs.python.org/issue5315 > > Another fairly obscure issue for most of us. Five years ago, this was turned > into a doc issue, but no patch was ever submitted for either 2.x or 3.x. > Again, no particular prejudice against 2.x. > > In May, you posted a bugfix which so far has been ignored. Not too > surprising. I submitted a ping and updated the versions. If anyone > responds, you might be asked for a patch against 3.4 or 3.5. Again, the prejudice was expressed in IRC. It was ignored because you can just use asyncio in 3.x, and because the bug was old. -- Devin
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-07-18 19:33 -0700
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-18 19:49 -0700
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-18 20:52 -0700
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-18 21:18 -0700
Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-19 14:45 +1000
Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 15:06 +1000
Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-19 10:16 +0300
Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 00:32 -0700
Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-19 10:44 +0300
Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-07-19 19:13 -0400
Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 19:02 -0700
Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Anuradha Laxminarayan <lanuradha@gmail.com> - 2015-07-18 23:25 -0700
Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-07-19 04:26 -0400
Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2015-07-19 07:56 -0500
Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 04:07 +1000
Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2015-07-19 14:55 -0500
Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 07:16 +1000
Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2015-07-20 00:43 -0700
Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2015-07-19 23:13 +0100
Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 20:30 -0700
Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 13:43 +1000
Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 23:11 -0700
Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-07-21 10:10 +0200
Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-21 12:10 +0300
Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 19:18 +1000
Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-21 13:13 +0300
Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-21 11:34 +0100
Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-21 20:39 +1000
Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-21 13:54 +0300
Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-08-09 00:27 +0300
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 09:29 -0700
Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 06:34 -0700
OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-23 02:58 +1000
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-07-22 19:17 +0200
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 10:49 -0700
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-07-22 20:14 +0200
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-22 21:59 +0100
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-23 03:21 +1000
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-22 21:44 -0400
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 12:00 +1000
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-22 10:48 -0700
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 10:51 -0700
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-23 15:14 +1000
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 11:09 -0700
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-23 15:41 +1000
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-23 23:59 +0300
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 07:03 +1000
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-24 00:29 +0300
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-23 22:50 +0100
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-07-23 23:52 +0200
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-24 00:59 +0300
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 08:02 +1000
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 08:00 +1000
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2015-07-23 23:01 +0100
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-07-24 00:19 +0200
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-23 23:56 +0100
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-24 00:07 +0000
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 18:40 -0700
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-23 19:03 -0700
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 20:16 -0700
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-24 14:13 +0000
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-24 08:45 -0700
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-24 16:58 +0100
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 22:15 -0700
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-07-23 18:57 +1200
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 02:12 -0700
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 05:52 -0700
Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-23 11:24 +0300
Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-21 18:57 +1000
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-07-19 02:44 -0400
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-07-19 05:11 -0400
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 07:30 -0700
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-19 15:00 +0100
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-19 14:45 +1000
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 18:20 -0700
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-20 13:05 +1000
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 20:41 -0700
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-20 02:46 +0100
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 19:16 -0700
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 12:59 +1000
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-20 11:59 +0100
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 20:04 -0700
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 20:15 -0700
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 13:33 +1000
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-07-21 00:45 -0400
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? breamoreboy@gmail.com - 2015-07-21 14:22 -0700
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 19:07 -0700
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-07-22 02:51 -0400
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 16:37 -0700
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-07-20 02:25 -0400
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? dieter <dieter@handshake.de> - 2015-07-20 08:58 +0200
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 00:13 -0700
csiph-web