Release 1.30.0 #1485

knight-of-ni · 2016-05-16T14:23:08Z

This issue has been created as a placeholder to document what we need to address before our next release.

Due to some of the changes we've implemented, I plan to create a draft release before releasing. I estimate the draft release process to take approx. 1 month.

@ ZoneMinder Team

Personally, I'm fine with calling our next release 1.29.1, instead of 1.30.0, but I'll go with popular opinion. Please voice your opinion on what we want to call our next release.
We have a lot of open pull requests. Review and discuss which ones should be part of our next release

@kylejohnson

Communicate to the rest of the team the state of the telemetry server. We want to make sure it is running reliably before we release. If there is anything needed, such as hardware upgrades, to minimize risk of downtime then let's have that discussion before we release.

@knnniggett

~~Review and test Improved WS-Discovery standard compliance #1411~~
~~review and merge Update zmupdate #1484~~
~~review and merge pass in the server url into the monitor object to use instead of the … #1478~~
~~Address unlink error message remove one unlink, add better error reporting to the rest #1500~~

@connortechnology

~~discuss and implement a solution to Do we need the multi-server "Not using multi server" logs? #1482 (see pr move multiserver message to display once during startup only #1499)~~
~~Update zmupdate #1484~~
~~Fix zone edit #1501~~

@pliablepixels

~~Update image view #1486~~
~~pass in the server url into the monitor object to use instead of the … #1478 to fix some multi-server problems.~~
~~Api improvements #1470 makes configuring the api a lot simpler.~~

@SteveGilvarry

anything?

connortechnology · 2016-05-16T14:39:57Z

I think 1.30 is the correct version number. It has onvif turned on, and telemetry. These are new features. 1.29.1 would be a bug fix release.

We need #1486 in to make @pliablepixels happy.

Also #1478 to fix some multi-server problems.

#1470 makes configuring the api a lot simpler.

josh4trunks · 2016-05-16T22:46:01Z

I'm hoping we get the FreeBSD port/pkg updated with the release of 1.30!

~~https://github.com/abishai/Zoneminder-port is working built off ff3e9c8, but I noticed some functions stopped working when I updated the port to 9377dca. See abishai/Zoneminder-port#4 (comment)~~

~~I'll test again on the latest commit and post a bug report if it's still not working.~~

EDIT
See result of my investigation #1450 (comment)

connortechnology · 2016-05-17T12:59:58Z

We should probably fix #1464 too.

knight-of-ni · 2016-05-18T20:06:11Z

Well, there is something still messed up with the master branch. I'm placing this hear for now until I've got time to troubleshoot this further:

Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/ZoneMinder/Logger.pm line 156.
Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/ZoneMinder/Logger.pm line 206.
Use of uninitialized value $ZoneMinder::Config::Config{"ZM_DB_HOST"} in pattern match (m//) at /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/ZoneMinder/Database.pm line 83.
Use of uninitialized value $ZoneMinder::Config::Config{"ZM_DB_NAME"} in concatenation (.) or string at /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/ZoneMinder/Database.pm line 100.
Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/ZoneMinder/Database.pm line 100.
DBI connect('database=;host=','',...) failed: Access denied for user 'root'@'localhost' (using password: NO) at /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/ZoneMinder/Database.pm line 100.
Can't call method "trace" on an undefined value at /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/ZoneMinder/Database.pm line 102.

This is from one of my weekly builds on Fedora.

UPDATE: commit 6e32b5d seems to be the cause of this.

josh4trunks · 2016-05-18T20:23:27Z

@knnniggett what commit did you build off? Database connections are working for me with b4b9c1f

knight-of-ni · 2016-05-18T20:34:48Z

b4b9c1f

Definitely broken in Fedora and CentOS. Weekly builds.
Commit 6e32b5d changed the way the Config hash is referenced.

josh4trunks · 2016-05-18T20:42:07Z

Strange, mine is working, as a fresh install on FreeBSD. Maybe because I already #1492?
But that doesn't change that first reference to $ZoneMinder::Config::Config{"ZM_DB_HOST"}

connortechnology · 2016-05-18T21:10:37Z

which .pl is generating that output?

connortechnology · 2016-05-18T21:11:51Z

basically the config hasn't been initialized yet... meaning that ZoneMinder.pm hasn't been included yet.

knight-of-ni · 2016-05-18T21:54:21Z

That output shows when I try to start zoneminder from the command line.
So it's either in zmpkg.pl or zmdc.pl

knight-of-ni · 2016-05-18T23:42:59Z

Just a note that this user encountered the same problem a day after 6e32b5d was merged:
https://forums.zoneminder.com/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=24676&p=94589

At the time of my first response in that thread, I was unaware of the recent changes to database.pm.

I am still looking for a possible solution, but at the moment I have not come up with a better solution other than to put it back to the way it was.

pliablepixels · 2016-05-20T11:47:26Z

Are we at code/issue freeze for 1.30? If not, there are a couple of benign changes (API documentation and a fix for #1493 for consideration. Neither affect zmNinja, so its your call.

knight-of-ni · 2016-05-20T11:56:47Z

Right now the master branch still isn't working in all cases due to recent changes to the Perl code while I was on vacation.

There will always be items we "need" to add to the source code, and right now I'm not willing to entertain anything other than fix the master branch and resolve what is already in this thread.

abishai · 2016-05-23T21:14:45Z

I'd like to test master under FreeBSD before 1.30.0 release to use release branch for port.
Can you ping me when it will be almost ready ?

SteveGilvarry · 2016-05-26T21:55:50Z

@knnniggett nothing for me, wasted about a week on spammers

knight-of-ni · 2016-06-01T01:04:51Z

Release Candidate 1 is now official:
https://github.com/ZoneMinder/ZoneMinder/releases/tag/v1.30.0-rc1

Let the package building marathon begin.

connortechnology · 2016-06-01T12:52:17Z

Thanks @knnniggett ! Um. I think we still need to bump the version files though.

knight-of-ni · 2016-06-01T13:00:31Z

Not sure which file you mean. The one that matters has been bumped to 1.30.0:
https://github.com/ZoneMinder/ZoneMinder/blob/master/CMakeLists.txt#L7

Along with the corresponding update script:
https://github.com/ZoneMinder/ZoneMinder/blob/master/db/zm_update-1.30.0.sql

If you are referring to the file "version" in the root folder, then no I did not bump that. That was intentional, due to the previous mass confusion from our user base caused by bumping that file too early. It'll get bumped when the release is official and not just a candidate.

knight-of-ni · 2016-06-01T13:02:52Z

@connortechnology I don't know if you did it on purpose, but you just deleted the 1.30.0 source tarball from our releases page. Please do not do that.

connortechnology · 2016-06-01T13:06:35Z

Sorry...

The file that has to be changed is called version.

connortechnology · 2016-06-01T13:06:53Z

okay, I give up.

connortechnology · 2016-06-01T13:08:46Z

packaging uses that file. I don't think pre-releases should have a tarball called 1.30. It should 1.30.rcwhatever. I also don't think we should be checking master branch's version file to see what the latest release is. Because it is not released. We need to fix this confusion.

knight-of-ni · 2016-06-01T13:10:49Z

I don't disagree with you, but @kylejohnson controls how the version file is used. Only he can change it as far as I know.

The tarball needs to be named that way because rpm packaging scripts require it to have that name.

connortechnology · 2016-06-01T13:11:42Z

Let's get this fixed before we go further. I will bug Kyle.

knight-of-ni · 2016-06-01T13:11:49Z

Now, I am going to step away from my pc today and celebrate my wife's 40th birthday today. Please don't break anything while I am away.

connortechnology · 2016-06-01T13:12:07Z

I will not. Enjoy your day and hers!

SteveGilvarry · 2016-06-01T13:17:49Z

Just don't bump the one used by version check until actual release, or all
and sundry will start installing rc1.

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 10:52 PM, Isaac Connor notifications@github.com
wrote:

Thanks @knnniggett https://github.com/knnniggett ! Um. I think we still
need to bump the version files though.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#1485 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AHQrXKn92EIitobOwG4-povtdEpbl1Tgks5qHYCIgaJpZM4IfXXT
.

pliablepixels · 2016-06-01T13:30:39Z

@SteveGilvarry - don't be a spoil sport. Let's have some mayhem, shall we 👍

knight-of-ni · 2016-06-03T14:17:11Z

Because I use it when I build packages, so at the moment, I am not making packages that say 1.30.

@connortechnology Why didn't you say that 4 posts ago? That file was never intended to be used that way, and nobody but you knew you were using it in that manner.

The version file has been out of sync since we bumped the rest of the code to 1.29.1, which was months ago.

In the short term, can't you just patch the verson file? I'm sure debian packaging scripts allow one to apply patches to the build. Alternatively, we could bump the version file in the release-1.30.0 branch, but not in the master branch.

knight-of-ni · 2016-06-11T16:33:50Z

zmupdate.pl shows the following non-fatal warning every time it is run:

Subroutine loadConfigFromDB redefined at /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/ZoneMinder/ConfigAdmin.pm line 69.
Subroutine saveConfigToDB redefined at /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/ZoneMinder/ConfigAdmin.pm line 118.
Subroutine main::loadConfigFromDB redefined at /bin/zmupdate.pl line 75.
    main::BEGIN() called at /bin/zmupdate.pl line 75
    eval {...} called at /bin/zmupdate.pl line 75
Subroutine main::saveConfigToDB redefined at /bin/zmupdate.pl line 75.
    main::BEGIN() called at /bin/zmupdate.pl line 75
    eval {...} called at /bin/zmupdate.pl line 75

UPDATE: @connortechnology See #1527

SteveGilvarry · 2016-06-12T23:20:36Z

@connortechnology can we do something to solve the ZMS_PATH change that everyone has to make? Assuming /zm/cgi-bin is the final resting place then we should make ZMS_PATH match apache conf.

pliablepixels · 2016-06-12T23:26:39Z

I'm almost tempted to say we should just configure the PATH_ZMS based on lsb_release -d post install, if it produces a text string that matches 'Ubuntu'|'Debian'|others - since 99% of the folks don't tinker with install paths

connortechnology · 2016-06-12T23:34:58Z

Hmm ... yes. Zms. WE should be able to do something. Like script a test and automatic update.

abishai · 2016-06-13T14:02:58Z

Will it break something? We use WWWROOT/cgi-bin ...

connortechnology · 2016-06-13T16:55:44Z

@abishai this would be part of the debian package scripts, and would not affect freebsd.

SteveGilvarry · 2016-06-21T09:42:35Z

I have added a few existing PR's to the 1.30 milestone, mainly where they clearly fix existing bugs. Close these out and we can RC2, any other issues or PR's that should be in now?

abishai · 2016-06-21T09:47:32Z

What about #1542 ? That's obvious and simple to fix issue. Or it's not confirmed?

josh4trunks · 2016-06-23T21:46:21Z

It would be nice to get this PR in so admins could specify their mysql port/socket
#1498

I understand we want to consolidate the database connections for Perl after 1.30, but merging this fix doesn't make that more difficult. It just makes the database connection logic identical and correct in the 3 Perl files currently making the connections.

knight-of-ni · 2016-06-24T12:21:19Z

Everyone of us can sit and make a never ending list of things each of us wants to include in the next release. I can do it too. This is exactly why we haven't actually released 1.30.0 yet. It literally never ends. As soon as we merge one guy's pet project, someone else shows up and makes the same argument to merge his or her pet widget. We have to draw the line somewhere if we are ever going to call 1.30.0 a release.

So the answer to "what about...." is no. Wait until the next release after 1.30.0. Yes, I'm being a hard ass about this, and I'm not going to enter into a discussion about it because my time it very valuable to me.

josh4trunks · 2016-06-24T16:04:03Z

I can wait, I'll continue to apply the patches to my own production system. Figured I'd present it since Steve asked.

No worries, I'd prefer ZM release often and not be like those projects which don't release an official stable version for years because they lost their cadence.

onlyjob · 2016-06-26T11:21:14Z

👍 @knnniggett. I'd rather see more point releases with small changes rather than infrequent releases with all the stuff that everybody wants in...
Could it be that some of us have this "last chance" feeling because releases don't happen often enough?

knight-of-ni · 2016-07-04T13:59:03Z

Discovered a show stopper for all systems running the latest version of libjpeg-turbo 1.5.0.
The latest versions of Fedora, Arch Linux, and possibly Debian (@onlyjob can you check ....libjpeg8?) already ship with this version of libjpeg-turbo so it is imperative we get this into master and test it.
See #1548

When we run into an issue like this, not only do we need to merge it, but we need to allow sufficient time for it to be tested by the community. This unfortunately means it will be a bit longer before 1.30.0 is released.

I do intend to create an RC2 once #1548 is merged.

onlyjob · 2016-07-05T21:00:49Z

Debian moved to libjpeg-turbo v1.5.0 about a month ago: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libjpeg-turbo
libjpeg8 is deprecated not used by default in Debian. libjpeg8 is not the same as libjpeg-turbo...

SteveGilvarry · 2016-07-06T14:34:41Z

@onlyjob tried to create alioth account to submit this but no joy tonight. New dependencies from zmtelemetry.pl.
libsys-cpu-perl
libsys-meminfo-perl

SteveGilvarry · 2016-07-06T14:45:34Z

@knnniggett If possible can we document so others can follow suit. And check out annotated tags so git describe works for release with having to add --tags.
Currently we get:
git describe
v1.27.0-2632-g75a9860
git describe --tags
v1.30.0-rc1-37-g75a9860
So last annotated tag was 1.27.0, 2632 commits ago.
https://nitstorm.github.io/blog/introduction-to-git-tags/

knight-of-ni · 2016-07-06T22:47:24Z

@SteveGilvarry I will add "update the release documentation in the wiki" to my list of things I can do when I'm not playing fireman. I do appreciate your interest and look forward to having help. However, I don't expect to get to that until after the 1.30.0 release. The good news is there are far fewer steps than what used to be.

Due to time constraints, I'm going to create the next RC2 tag via the normal method.

I see what you are saying about annotated tags, but I could use some help understanding exactly what this seemingly redundant release information is useful for. I'm not saying I won't do it, but knowing some use cases will help me figure out what information to put in it.

Here is the most recent annotated tag from v.127:

tag v1.27.0
Tagger: Kyle Johnson <kjohnson@gnulnx.net>
Date:   Sat Mar 15 00:51:19 2014 -0400

Release 1.27.0
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
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=Yse8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

commit 75d390d70aff164f9afdeead6f5a344c8063e8ae
Merge: 16c59f7 d37b4a2
Author: Kyle Johnson <kjohnson@gnulnx.net>
Date:   Sat Mar 15 00:51:13 2014 -0400

    Merge branch 'release-1.27'

I don't find this particular information to be too useful, do you? So let's decide what to put in the annotation, and I'll do it for the 1.30.0 release.

SteveGilvarry · 2016-07-06T23:20:20Z

Let's me use git describe for versioning, and gives count of commits since
last version tag. I found it when using an example to automate packaging,
and I was scratching head why it kept wanting to generate 1.27. Not sure of
use beyond that but seems annotated is more proper for releases over
lightweight tags.
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 at 8:47 AM, Andrew Bauer notifications@github.com
wrote:

@SteveGilvarry https://github.com/SteveGilvarry I will add "update the
release documentation in the wiki" to my list of things I can do when I'm
not playing fireman. I do appreciate your interest and look forward to
having help. However, I don't expect to get to that until after the 1.30.0
release. The good news is there are far fewer steps than what used to be.

Due to time constraints, I'm going to create the next RC2 tag via the
normal method.

I see what you are saying about annotated tags, but I could use some help
understanding exactly what this seemingly redundant release information is
useful for. I'm not saying I won't do it, but knowing some use cases will
help me figure out what information to put in it.

Here is the most recent annotated tag from v.127:

tag v1.27.0
Tagger: Kyle Johnson kjohnson@gnulnx.net
Date: Sat Mar 15 00:51:19 2014 -0400

Release 1.27.0
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
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=Yse8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

commit 75d390d
Merge: 16c59f7 d37b4a2
Author: Kyle Johnson kjohnson@gnulnx.net
Date: Sat Mar 15 00:51:13 2014 -0400
Merge branch 'release-1.27'
I don't find this particular information to be too useful, do you? So
let's decide what to put in the annotation, and I'll do it for the 1.30.0
release.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.

Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#1485 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AHQrXN8k4xqYZVi7QzNBtImpzcfGKgcVks5qTDCCgaJpZM4IfXXT
.

knight-of-ni · 2016-07-06T23:35:58Z

Okay, so RC2 is out.
Based on recent issues, it looks like we need to look at exports again (leaves fireman hat on).

I made the mistake of leaving my .git folder in the tarball attached to draft release.... note to self. Don't do that. It ballooned the archive by a factor of 10.

@SteveGilvarry That sounds reasonable, but what do you want the contents of the annotation to be?
Would this be sufficient?

tag v1.27.0
Tagger: Kyle Johnson <kjohnson@gnulnx.net>
Date:   Sat Mar 15 00:51:19 2014 -0400

And can one add an annotation after the tag has already been created?

SteveGilvarry · 2016-07-06T23:47:08Z

Yes same as the 1.27 one works fine. I think I saw something about
replacing a tag.

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 at 9:36 AM, Andrew Bauer notifications@github.com
wrote:

Okay, so RC2 is out.
Based on recent issues, it looks like we need to look at exports again
(leaves fireman hat on).

I made the mistake of leaving my .git folder in the tarball attached to
draft release.... note to self. Don't do that. It ballooned the archive by
a factor of 10.

@SteveGilvarry https://github.com/SteveGilvarry That sounds reasonable,
but what do you want the contents of the annotation to be?
Would this be sufficient?

tag v1.27.0
Tagger: Kyle Johnson kjohnson@gnulnx.net
Date: Sat Mar 15 00:51:19 2014 -0400

And can one add an annotation after the tag has already been created?

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#1485 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AHQrXIq1QdWhhieG5FBMu6CwM0DgPL2mks5qTDvjgaJpZM4IfXXT
.

knight-of-ni · 2016-07-06T23:56:43Z

Force updated the tag like so:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5002555/can-a-lightweight-tag-be-converted-to-an-annotated-tag

It looks like it worked, but it is ugly:

abauer@Ubuntu-Desktop:~/git/ZoneMinder$ git describe
v1.30.0-rc2
abauer@Ubuntu-Desktop:~/git/ZoneMinder$ git show v1.30.0-rc2
tag v1.30.0-rc2
Tagger: Andy Bauer <knnniggett@hotmail.com>
Date:   Wed Jul 6 18:53:33 2016 -0500

tag v1.30.0-rc2
Tagger: Andrew Bauer <knnniggett@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Wed Jul  6 18:49:07 CDT 2016

tag v1.30.0-rc2
Tagger: Andy Bauer <knnniggett@hotmail.com>
Date:   Wed Jul 6 18:48:37 2016 -0500

tag v1.30.0-rc2
Tagger: Andrew Bauer <knnniggett@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Wed Jul  6 18:49:07 CDT 2016

commit 4873683f01eb66634dd857ef7904f5c9aaeb01dc
Merge: 257ce2b 75a9860
Author: Steve Gilvarry <SteveGilvarry@users.noreply.github.com>
Date:   Thu Jul 7 00:13:54 2016 +1000

    Merge pull request #1548 from knnniggett/libjpegturbo

    fix jpeg buffer too small

The information you see does not show up in the editor, allowing me to clean it up, so I'm declaring it good enough for now.

SteveGilvarry · 2016-07-07T00:13:33Z

OK so hopefully a normal annotated tag does it cleaner, but desired result is achieved, so thanks for giving it a go.

And were you referring to the export email thread in the forum when you said issues?

knight-of-ni · 2016-07-07T00:27:45Z

#1550
The same code that handles exports could be called to create the email attachment.... at least that is my guess what to look for if/when I've got a moment to look into it.

onlyjob · 2016-07-07T01:15:10Z

seems annotated is more proper for releases over lightweight tags.

Not sure if this is relevant here but I've seen dh-make-golang complaining about lightweight tags:

Lightweight tags (created by e.g. "git tag") are problematic because, among other
things, they are ignored by "git describe" by default.
Please suggest that the upstream replaces the lightweight tags with annotated ones.
See russross/blackfriday#196 for details.

knight-of-ni · 2016-07-28T23:39:44Z

Release 1.30.0 The Day that Never Comes, has finally come.
Rejoice and be merry.

@SteveGilvarry I think I did the annotated tags right

SteveGilvarry · 2016-07-29T00:35:02Z

Looks good @knnniggett thanks for your work and perseverance in getting it out the door.
git describe --long
v1.30.0-0-ge7aed10
FYI can use this for master snapshots as it is version-no of commits since tag-last commit

knight-of-ni added this to the v1.30.0 milestone May 16, 2016

knight-of-ni referenced this issue May 18, 2016

Use fully specified COnfig hash to simplify Symbol tables

6e32b5d

This was referenced Jun 3, 2016

Have cmake take the version from the version file #1515

Merged

do_debian.sh version name for package #1517

Closed

knight-of-ni closed this as completed Jul 28, 2016

Release 1.30.0 #1485

Release 1.30.0 #1485

Comments

knight-of-ni commented May 16, 2016 • edited

connortechnology commented May 16, 2016

josh4trunks commented May 16, 2016 • edited

connortechnology commented May 17, 2016

knight-of-ni commented May 18, 2016 • edited

josh4trunks commented May 18, 2016

knight-of-ni commented May 18, 2016

josh4trunks commented May 18, 2016

connortechnology commented May 18, 2016

connortechnology commented May 18, 2016

knight-of-ni commented May 18, 2016

knight-of-ni commented May 18, 2016 • edited

pliablepixels commented May 20, 2016

knight-of-ni commented May 20, 2016

abishai commented May 23, 2016

SteveGilvarry commented May 26, 2016

knight-of-ni commented Jun 1, 2016

connortechnology commented Jun 1, 2016

knight-of-ni commented Jun 1, 2016

knight-of-ni commented Jun 1, 2016 • edited

connortechnology commented Jun 1, 2016

connortechnology commented Jun 1, 2016

connortechnology commented Jun 1, 2016

knight-of-ni commented Jun 1, 2016

connortechnology commented Jun 1, 2016

knight-of-ni commented Jun 1, 2016

connortechnology commented Jun 1, 2016

SteveGilvarry commented Jun 1, 2016

pliablepixels commented Jun 1, 2016

knight-of-ni commented Jun 3, 2016

knight-of-ni commented Jun 11, 2016 • edited

SteveGilvarry commented Jun 12, 2016

pliablepixels commented Jun 12, 2016 • edited

connortechnology commented Jun 12, 2016

abishai commented Jun 13, 2016

connortechnology commented Jun 13, 2016

SteveGilvarry commented Jun 21, 2016

abishai commented Jun 21, 2016

josh4trunks commented Jun 23, 2016

knight-of-ni commented Jun 24, 2016

josh4trunks commented Jun 24, 2016

onlyjob commented Jun 26, 2016

knight-of-ni commented Jul 4, 2016

onlyjob commented Jul 5, 2016

SteveGilvarry commented Jul 6, 2016

SteveGilvarry commented Jul 6, 2016

knight-of-ni commented Jul 6, 2016

SteveGilvarry commented Jul 6, 2016

knight-of-ni commented Jul 6, 2016

SteveGilvarry commented Jul 6, 2016

knight-of-ni commented Jul 6, 2016 • edited

SteveGilvarry commented Jul 7, 2016

knight-of-ni commented Jul 7, 2016

onlyjob commented Jul 7, 2016

knight-of-ni commented Jul 28, 2016

SteveGilvarry commented Jul 29, 2016

knight-of-ni commented May 16, 2016 •

edited

josh4trunks commented May 16, 2016 •

edited

knight-of-ni commented May 18, 2016 •

edited

knight-of-ni commented May 18, 2016 •

edited

knight-of-ni commented Jun 1, 2016 •

edited

knight-of-ni commented Jun 11, 2016 •

edited

pliablepixels commented Jun 12, 2016 •

edited

knight-of-ni commented Jul 6, 2016 •

edited