[REVIEW]: Easy3D: a lightweight, easy-to-use, and efficient C++ library for processing and rendering 3D data #3255

whedon · 2021-05-05T17:57:42Z

Submitting author: @LiangliangNan (Liangliang Nan)
Repository: https://github.com/LiangliangNan/Easy3D
Version: v2.4.5
Editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Reviewer: @adi3, @vissarion, @bhajay
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.4967311

⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/29cf579bccf0a1fc1f97de041d230891"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/29cf579bccf0a1fc1f97de041d230891/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/29cf579bccf0a1fc1f97de041d230891/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/29cf579bccf0a1fc1f97de041d230891)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@adi3 & @vissarion & @ @bhajay, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Review checklist for @adi3

Conflict of interest

I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@LiangliangNan) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

Review checklist for @vissarion

Conflict of interest

I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@LiangliangNan) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

Review checklist for @bhajay

Conflict of interest

I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@LiangliangNan) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation? #3472
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution. #3473
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)? #3480
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified? #3481
Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support #3479

Software paper

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

whedon · 2021-05-05T17:57:46Z

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @adi3, @vissarion, @ @bhajay it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper 🎉.

⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

⭐ Important ⭐

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@whedon generate pdf

whedon · 2021-05-05T17:58:30Z

PDF failed to compile for issue #3255 with the following error:

 Can't find any papers to compile :-(

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2021-05-05T17:58:52Z

@whedon re-invite @bhajay as reviewer

whedon · 2021-05-05T17:58:56Z

OK, the reviewer has been re-invited.

@bhajay please accept the invite by clicking this link: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

whedon · 2021-05-05T18:01:53Z

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=4.45 s (318.7 files/s, 145819.5 lines/s)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                         files          blank        comment           code
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C/C++ Header                       807          42718          63967         204179
C++                                354          27590          30854         174996
C                                   47           8144           7134          61354
Qt                                  22              0              0           7812
GLSL                                86           1190            963           4437
CMake                               71            689            689           3010
Objective-C                          5            702            339           2919
Markdown                            16            898              0           2705
PL/M                                 1              0              0            494
XML                                  5             17             22            346
make                                 2             37            107             34
Windows Resource File                1              1              2              1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                              1417          81986         104077         462287
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Statistical information for the repository '4b0fe2721500647072be8079' was
gathered on 2021/05/05.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
Chunmei                          5            49             27            0.00
Daniel Feist                     1             3              3            0.00
Kelvin                           1             7              1            0.00
Liangliang Nan                1977       1134708         582896           97.82
LiangliangNan                   12          1554           1543            0.18
liangliang                      16           302            259            0.03
liangliang.nan                   1             1              0            0.00
tonghao.yuan                     2         25461           9003            1.96

Below are the number of rows from each author that have survived and are still
intact in the current revision:

Author                     Rows      Stability          Age       % in comments
Chunmei                       1            2.0         14.7                0.00
Daniel Feist                  1           33.3         18.6                0.00
Liangliang Nan           542519           47.8         13.4               17.84
tonghao.yuan              25461          100.0          0.8               18.20

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2021-05-05T19:15:56Z

@whedon generate pdf from branch joss

whedon · 2021-05-05T19:15:59Z

Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch joss. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon · 2021-05-05T19:17:26Z

PDF failed to compile for issue #3255 with the following error:

 /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.6.0/gems/octokit-4.8.0/lib/octokit/response/raise_error.rb:16:in `on_complete': GET https://api.github.com/repos/JuliaCon/proceedings-review/issues/3255: 404 - Not Found // See: https://docs.github.com/rest/reference/issues#get-an-issue (Octokit::NotFound)
	from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.6.0/gems/faraday-0.15.4/lib/faraday/response.rb:9:in `block in call'
	from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.6.0/gems/faraday-0.15.4/lib/faraday/response.rb:61:in `on_complete'
	from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.6.0/gems/faraday-0.15.4/lib/faraday/response.rb:8:in `call'
	from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.6.0/gems/octokit-4.8.0/lib/octokit/middleware/follow_redirects.rb:73:in `perform_with_redirection'
	from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.6.0/gems/octokit-4.8.0/lib/octokit/middleware/follow_redirects.rb:61:in `call'
	from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.6.0/gems/faraday-0.15.4/lib/faraday/rack_builder.rb:143:in `build_response'
	from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.6.0/gems/faraday-0.15.4/lib/faraday/connection.rb:387:in `run_request'
	from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.6.0/gems/faraday-0.15.4/lib/faraday/connection.rb:138:in `get'
	from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.6.0/gems/sawyer-0.8.2/lib/sawyer/agent.rb:94:in `call'
	from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.6.0/gems/octokit-4.8.0/lib/octokit/connection.rb:156:in `request'
	from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.6.0/gems/octokit-4.8.0/lib/octokit/connection.rb:19:in `get'
	from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.6.0/gems/octokit-4.8.0/lib/octokit/client/issues.rb:114:in `issue'
	from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.6.0/bundler/gems/whedon-92346a0773a4/lib/whedon/review.rb:21:in `issue_body'
	from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.6.0/bundler/gems/whedon-92346a0773a4/bin/whedon:44:in `prepare'
	from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.6.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/command.rb:27:in `run'
	from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.6.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/invocation.rb:126:in `invoke_command'
	from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.6.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor.rb:387:in `dispatch'
	from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.6.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/base.rb:466:in `start'
	from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.6.0/bundler/gems/whedon-92346a0773a4/bin/whedon:131:in `<top (required)>'
	from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.6.0/bin/whedon:23:in `load'
	from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.6.0/bin/whedon:23:in `<main>'

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2021-05-05T19:20:24Z

@openjournals/dev can you see what's wrong here?

arfon · 2021-05-05T21:02:58Z

@whedon generate pdf from branch joss

whedon · 2021-05-05T21:03:01Z

Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch joss. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon · 2021-05-05T21:06:27Z

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

whedon · 2021-05-19T17:57:55Z

👋 @vissarion, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

whedon · 2021-05-19T17:57:55Z

👋 @adi3, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

adi3 · 2021-05-24T17:17:37Z

@LiangliangNan Your Summary and Statement of Need sections are switched. Please correct this and regenerate the article proof. Also, about the figure you have included in the paper, can you please put the plain raw files in a simple grid layout? Right now, they are shown as a collage of overlapping elliptic frames with colorful borders and shadows around them? This is not appropriate for an academic publication.

LiangliangNan · 2021-05-24T23:46:44Z

@adi3 Thanks for the comments. The paper has been restructured and an additional figure has also been added to demonstrate the four different data structures supported by the software.

whedon · 2021-05-24T23:46:53Z

Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch joss. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon · 2021-05-24T23:47:32Z

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

whedon · 2021-05-24T23:59:58Z

Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch joss. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon · 2021-05-25T00:00:40Z

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

whedon · 2021-05-25T00:09:25Z

Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch joss. Reticulating splines etc...

LiangliangNan · 2021-08-21T20:54:32Z

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman The title has been updated. Thanks!

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2021-08-21T22:46:47Z

@whedon recommend-accept

whedon · 2021-08-21T22:46:50Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon · 2021-08-21T22:47:10Z

PDF failed to compile for issue #3255 with the following error:

 Can't find any papers to compile :-(

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2021-08-21T23:24:10Z

@whedon recommend-accept from branch joss

whedon · 2021-08-21T23:24:13Z

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@whedon commands

danielskatz · 2021-08-22T20:30:45Z

@whedon recommend-accept from branch joss

whedon · 2021-08-22T20:30:48Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon · 2021-08-22T20:31:04Z

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.2312/LocalChapterEvents/ItalChap/ItalianChapConf2008/129-136 is OK
- 10.1145/1653771.1653865 is OK
- 10.3390/rs11182074 is OK
- 10.3390/rs12183089 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2021.07.008 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

whedon · 2021-08-22T20:31:31Z

👋 @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#2520

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#2520, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true from branch joss

danielskatz · 2021-08-22T20:31:53Z

👋 @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman - I'm not sure what went wrong when you tried this yesterday, but it's now working. Please feel free to handle the final processing yourself as a AEiC, or let me know if you want me to do it as the on-duty AEiC.

danielskatz · 2021-08-22T20:32:41Z

👋 @LiangliangNan - please fix the incorrect DOI (remove the 'https://doi.org/' prefix) as @whedon suggests above

LiangliangNan · 2021-08-22T21:10:00Z

@whedon generate pdf from branch joss

whedon · 2021-08-22T21:10:04Z

Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch joss. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon · 2021-08-22T21:10:47Z

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

LiangliangNan · 2021-08-22T21:11:46Z

👋 @LiangliangNan - please fix the incorrect DOI (remove the 'https://doi.org/' prefix) as @whedon suggests above

@danielskatz The DOI has been fixed. Please proceed. Thanks!

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2021-08-23T08:11:10Z

@whedon check references from branch joss

whedon · 2021-08-23T08:11:13Z

Attempting to check references... from custom branch joss

whedon · 2021-08-23T08:11:30Z

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.2312/LocalChapterEvents/ItalChap/ItalianChapConf2008/129-136 is OK
- 10.1145/1653771.1653865 is OK
- 10.3390/rs11182074 is OK
- 10.3390/rs12183089 is OK
- 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2021.07.008 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2021-08-23T08:15:08Z

@whedon accept deposit=true from branch joss

whedon · 2021-08-23T08:15:12Z

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

whedon · 2021-08-23T08:16:09Z

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

whedon · 2021-08-23T08:16:10Z

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.03255 joss-papers#2522
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03255
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

LiangliangNan · 2021-08-23T13:50:39Z

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.03255 joss-papers#2522

Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03255

If everything looks good, then close this review issue.

Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

Yes. Everything looks good.
Thank you again for all the help and efforts!

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2021-08-23T16:09:48Z

Congratulatios @LiangliangNan

And thank you so much to @adi3, @vissarion, and @bhajay for your review efforts!

whedon · 2021-08-23T16:09:52Z

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03255/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03255)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03255">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03255/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03255/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03255

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

whedon added C C++ CMake review labels May 5, 2021

whedon assigned Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman May 5, 2021

whedon mentioned this issue May 5, 2021

[PRE REVIEW]: Easy3D: a lightweight, easy-to-use, and efficient C++ library for processing and rendering 3D data #2885

Closed

whedon assigned adi3, vissarion and bhajay May 6, 2021

whedon added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Aug 21, 2021

whedon added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Aug 23, 2021

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman closed this as completed Aug 23, 2021

[REVIEW]: Easy3D: a lightweight, easy-to-use, and efficient C++ library for processing and rendering 3D data #3255

[REVIEW]: Easy3D: a lightweight, easy-to-use, and efficient C++ library for processing and rendering 3D data #3255

Comments

whedon commented May 5, 2021 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Review checklist for @adi3

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @vissarion

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @bhajay

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

whedon commented May 5, 2021

whedon commented May 5, 2021

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented May 5, 2021

whedon commented May 5, 2021

whedon commented May 5, 2021

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented May 5, 2021

whedon commented May 5, 2021

whedon commented May 5, 2021

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented May 5, 2021 • edited Loading

arfon commented May 5, 2021

whedon commented May 5, 2021

whedon commented May 5, 2021

whedon commented May 19, 2021

whedon commented May 19, 2021

adi3 commented May 24, 2021

LiangliangNan commented May 24, 2021 • edited Loading

whedon commented May 24, 2021

whedon commented May 24, 2021

whedon commented May 24, 2021

whedon commented May 25, 2021

whedon commented May 25, 2021

LiangliangNan commented Aug 21, 2021

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Aug 21, 2021

whedon commented Aug 21, 2021

whedon commented Aug 21, 2021

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Aug 21, 2021

whedon commented Aug 21, 2021

danielskatz commented Aug 22, 2021

whedon commented Aug 22, 2021

whedon commented Aug 22, 2021

whedon commented Aug 22, 2021

danielskatz commented Aug 22, 2021

danielskatz commented Aug 22, 2021

LiangliangNan commented Aug 22, 2021

whedon commented Aug 22, 2021

whedon commented Aug 22, 2021

LiangliangNan commented Aug 22, 2021

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Aug 23, 2021

whedon commented Aug 23, 2021

whedon commented Aug 23, 2021

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Aug 23, 2021

whedon commented Aug 23, 2021

whedon commented Aug 23, 2021

whedon commented Aug 23, 2021

LiangliangNan commented Aug 23, 2021

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Aug 23, 2021

whedon commented Aug 23, 2021

whedon commented May 5, 2021 •

edited

Loading

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented May 5, 2021 •

edited

Loading

LiangliangNan commented May 24, 2021 •

edited

Loading