Okay, so it seems we have agreement on the approach here, so I’ll continue with
this, and on the dev call it was mentioned that “airflow-common” wasn’t a great
name, so here is my proposal for the file structure;
```
/
task-sdk/...
airflow-core/...
shared/
kuberenetes/
pyproject.toml
src/
airflow_kube/__init__.py
core-and-tasksdk/
pyproject.toml
src/
airflow_shared/__init__.py
```
Things to note here: the “shared” folder has (the possibility) of having
multiple different shared “libraries” in it, in this example I am supposing a
hypothetical shared kuberenetes folder a world in which we split the
KubePodOperator and the KubeExecutor in to two separate distributions (example
only, not proposing we do that right now, and that will be a separate
discussion)
The other things to note here:
- the folder name in shared aims to be “self-documenting”, hence the verbose
“core-and-tasksdk” to say where the shared library is intended to be used.
- the python module itself should almost always have an `airflow_` (or maybe
`_airflow_`?) prefix so that it does not conflict with anything else we might
use. It won’t matter “in production” as those will be vendored in to be
imported as `airflow/_vendor/airflow_shared` etc, but avoiding conflicts at dev
time with the Finder approach is a good safety measure.
I will start making a real PR for this proposal now, but I’m open to feedback
(either here, or in the PR when I open it)
-ash
> On 4 Jul 2025, at 16:55, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Yeah we have to try it and test - also building packages happens semi
> frequently when you run `uv sync` (they use some kind of heuristics to
> decide when) and you can force it with `--reinstall` or `--refresh`.
> Package build also happens every time when you run "ci-image build` now in
> breeze so it seems like it will nicely integrate in our workflows.
>
> Looks really cool Ash.
>
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 5:14 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It’s not just release time, but any time we build a package which happens
>> on “every” CI run. The normal unit tests will use code from
>> airflow-common/src/airflow_common; the kube tests which build an image will
>> build the dists and vendor in the code from that commit.
>>
>> There is only a single copy of the shared code committed to the repo, so
>> there is never anything to synchronise.
>>
>>> On 4 Jul 2025, at 15:53, Amogh Desai <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Ash.
>>>
>>> This is really cool and helpful that you were able to test both scenarios
>>> -- repo checkout
>>> and also installing from the vendored package and the resolution worked
>>> fine too.
>>>
>>> I like this idea compared the to relative import one for few reasons:
>>> - It feels like it will take some time to adjust to the new coding
>> standard
>>> that we will lay
>>> if we impose relative imports in the shared dist
>>> - We can continue using repo wise absolute import standards, it is also
>>> much easier for situations
>>> when we do global search in IDE to find + replace, this could mean a
>> change
>>> there
>>> - The vendoring work is a proven and established paradigm across projects
>>> and would
>>> out of box give us the build tooling we need also
>>>
>>> Nothing too against the relative import but with the evidence provided
>>> above, vendored approach
>>> seems to only do us good.
>>>
>>> Regarding synchronizing it, release time should be fine as long as we
>> have
>>> a good CI workflow to probably
>>> catch such issues per PR if changes are made in shared dist? (precommit
>>> would make it really slow i guess)
>>>
>>> If we can run our tests with vendored code we should be mostly covered.
>>>
>>> Good effort all!
>>>
>>> Thanks & Regards,
>>> Amogh Desai
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 7:23 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Okay, I think I’ve got something that works and I’m happy with.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> https://github.com/astronomer/airflow/tree/shared-vendored-lib-tasksdk-and-core
>>>>
>>>> This produces the following from `uv build task-sdk`
>>>> -
>>>>
>> https://github.com/user-attachments/files/21058976/apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0.tar.gz
>>>> -
>>>>
>> https://github.com/user-attachments/files/21058996/apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0-py3-none-any.whl.zip
>>>>
>>>> (`.whl.zip` as GH won't allow .whl upload, but will .zip)
>>>>
>>>> ```
>>>> ❯ unzip -l dist/apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0-py3-none-any.whl.zip |
>> grep
>>>> _vendor
>>>> 50 02-02-2020 00:00 airflow/sdk/_vendor/.gitignore
>>>> 2082 02-02-2020 00:00 airflow/sdk/_vendor/__init__.py
>>>> 28 02-02-2020 00:00 airflow/sdk/_vendor/airflow_common.pyi
>>>> 18 02-02-2020 00:00 airflow/sdk/_vendor/vendor.txt
>>>> 785 02-02-2020 00:00
>>>> airflow/sdk/_vendor/airflow_common/__init__.py
>>>> 10628 02-02-2020 00:00
>>>> airflow/sdk/_vendor/airflow_common/timezone.py
>>>> ```
>>>>
>>>> And similarly in the .tar.gz, so our “sdist” is complete too:
>>>> ```
>>>> ❯ tar -tzf dist/apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0.tar.gz |grep _vendor
>>>> apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0/src/airflow/sdk/_vendor/.gitignore
>>>> apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0/src/airflow/sdk/_vendor/__init__.py
>>>> apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0/src/airflow/sdk/_vendor/airflow_common.pyi
>>>> apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0/src/airflow/sdk/_vendor/vendor.txt
>>>>
>>>>
>> apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0/src/airflow/sdk/_vendor/airflow_common/__init__.py
>>>>
>>>>
>> apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0/src/airflow/sdk/_vendor/airflow_common/timezone.py
>>>> ```
>>>>
>>>> The plugin works at build time by including/copying the libs specified
>> in
>>>> vendor.txt into place (and let `vendoring` take care of import
>> rewrites.)
>>>>
>>>> For the imports to continue to work at “dev” time/from a repo checkout,
>> I
>>>> have added a import finder to `sys.meta_path`, and since it’s at the
>> end of
>>>> the list it will only be used if the normal import can’t find things.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> https://github.com/astronomer/airflow/blob/996817782be6071b306a87af9f36fe1cf2d3aaa3/task-sdk/src/airflow/sdk/_vendor/__init__.py
>>>>
>>>> This doesn’t quite give us the same runtime effect “import rewriting”
>>>> affect, as in this approach `airflow_common` is directly loaded (i.e.
>>>> airflow.sdk._vendor.airflow_common and airflow_common exist in
>>>> sys.modules), but it does work for everything that I was able to test..
>>>>
>>>> I tested it with the diff at the end of this message. My test ipython
>>>> shell:
>>>>
>>>> ```
>>>> In [1]: from airflow.sdk._vendor.airflow_common.timezone import foo
>>>>
>>>> In [2]: foo
>>>> Out[2]: 1
>>>>
>>>> In [3]: import airflow.sdk._vendor.airflow_common
>>>>
>>>> In [4]: import airflow.sdk._vendor.airflow_common.timezone
>>>>
>>>> In [5]: airflow.sdk._vendor.airflow_common.__file__
>>>> Out[5]:
>>>>
>> '/Users/ash/code/airflow/airflow/airflow-common/src/airflow_common/__init__.py'
>>>>
>>>> In [6]: airflow.sdk._vendor.airflow_common.timezone.__file__
>>>> Out[6]:
>>>>
>> '/Users/ash/code/airflow/airflow/airflow-common/src/airflow_common/timezone.py'
>>>>
>>>> ```
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And in an standalone environment with the SDK dist I built (it needed
>> the
>>>> matching airflow-core right now, but that is nothing to do with this
>>>> discussion):
>>>>
>>>> ```
>>>> ❯ _AIRFLOW__AS_LIBRARY=1 uvx --python 3.12 --with
>>>> dist/apache_airflow_core-3.1.0-py3-none-any.whl --with
>>>> dist/apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0-py3-none-any.whl ipython
>>>> Python 3.12.7 (main, Oct 16 2024, 07:12:08) [Clang 18.1.8 ]
>>>> Type 'copyright', 'credits' or 'license' for more information
>>>> IPython 9.4.0 -- An enhanced Interactive Python. Type '?' for help.
>>>> Tip: You can use `%hist` to view history, see the options with
>> `%history?`
>>>>
>>>> In [1]: import airflow.sdk._vendor.airflow_common.timezone
>>>>
>>>> In [2]: airflow.sdk._vendor.airflow_common.timezone.__file__
>>>> Out[2]:
>>>>
>> '/Users/ash/.cache/uv/archive-v0/WWq6r65aPto2eJOyPObEH/lib/python3.12/site-packages/airflow/sdk/_vendor/airflow_common/timezone.py’
>>>> ``
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ```diff
>>>> diff --git a/airflow-common/src/airflow_common/__init__.py
>>>> b/airflow-common/src/airflow_common/__init__.py
>>>> index 13a83393a9..927b7c6b61 100644
>>>> --- a/airflow-common/src/airflow_common/__init__.py
>>>> +++ b/airflow-common/src/airflow_common/__init__.py
>>>> @@ -14,3 +14,5 @@
>>>> # KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the
>>>> # specific language governing permissions and limitations
>>>> # under the License.
>>>> +
>>>> +foo = 1
>>>> diff --git a/airflow-common/src/airflow_common/timezone.py
>>>> b/airflow-common/src/airflow_common/timezone.py
>>>> index 340b924c66..58384ef20f 100644
>>>> --- a/airflow-common/src/airflow_common/timezone.py
>>>> +++ b/airflow-common/src/airflow_common/timezone.py
>>>> @@ -36,6 +36,9 @@ _PENDULUM3 =
>>>> version.parse(metadata.version("pendulum")).major == 3
>>>> # - FixedTimezone(0, "UTC") in pendulum 2
>>>> utc = pendulum.UTC
>>>>
>>>> +
>>>> +from airflow_common import foo
>>>> +
>>>> TIMEZONE: Timezone
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ```
>>>>
>>>>>> On 3 Jul 2025, at 12:43, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think both approaches are doable:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) -> We can very easily prevent bad imports by pre-commit when
>> importing
>>>>> from different distributions and make sure we are only doing relative
>>>>> imports in the shared modules. We are doing plenty of this already. And
>>>> yes
>>>>> it would require relative links we currently do not allow.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) -> has one disadvantage that someone at some point in time will have
>>>> to
>>>>> decide to synchronize this and if it happens just before release (I bet
>>>>> this is going to happen) this will lead to solving problems that would
>>>>> normally be solved during PR when you make a change (i.e. symbolic link
>>>> has
>>>>> the advantage that whoever modifies shared code will be immediately
>>>>> notified in their PR - that they broke something because either static
>>>>> checks or mypy or tests fail.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ash, do you have an idea of a process (who and when) does the
>>>>> synchronisation in case of vendoring? Maybe we could solve it if it is
>>>> done
>>>>> more frequently and with some regularity? We could potentially force
>>>>> re-vendoring at PR time as well any time shared code changes (and
>> prevent
>>>>> it by pre-commit. And I can't think of some place (other than releases)
>>>> in
>>>>> our development workflow and that seems to be a bit too late as puts an
>>>>> extra effort on fixing potential incompatibilities introduced on
>> release
>>>>> manager and delays the release. WDYT?
>>>>>
>>>>> Re: relative links. I think for a shared library we could potentially
>>>> relax
>>>>> this and allow them (and actually disallow absolute links in the pieces
>>>> of
>>>>> code that are shared - again, by pre-commit). As I recall, the only
>>>> reason
>>>>> we forbade the relative links is because of how we are (or maybe were)
>>>>> doing DAG parsing and failures resulting from it. So we decided to just
>>>> not
>>>>> allow it to keep consistency. The way how Dag parsing works is that
>> when
>>>>> you are using importlib to read the Dag from a file, the relative
>> imports
>>>>> do not work as it does not know what they should be relative to. But if
>>>>> relative import is done from an imported package, it should be no
>>>> problem,
>>>>> I think - otherwise our Dags would not be able to import any library
>> that
>>>>> uses relative imports.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course consistency might be the reason why we do not want to
>> introduce
>>>>> relative imports. I don't see it as an issue if it is guarded by
>>>> pre-commit
>>>>> though.
>>>>>
>>>>> J.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> J.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> czw., 3 lip 2025, 12:11 użytkownik Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]>
>>>>> napisał:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh yes, symlinks will work, with one big caveat: It does mean you
>> can’t
>>>>>> use absolute imports in one common module to another.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For example
>>>>>>
>>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/4c66ebd06/airflow-core/src/airflow/utils/serve_logs.py#L41
>>>>>> where we have
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ```
>>>>>> from airflow.utils.module_loading import import_string
>>>>>> ```
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if we want to move serve_logs into this common lib that is then
>>>> symlinked
>>>>>> then we wouldn’t be able to have `from airflow_common.module_loading
>>>> import
>>>>>> import_string`.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can think of two possible solutions here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) is to allow/require relative imports in this shared lib, so `from
>>>>>> .module_loading import import_string`
>>>>>> 2) is to use `vendoring`[1] (from the pip maintainers) which will
>> handle
>>>>>> import-rewriting for us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’d entirely forgot that symlinks in repos was a thing, so I prepared
>> a
>>>>>> minimal POC/demo of what vendoring approach could look like here
>>>>>>
>>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/commit/996817782be6071b306a87af9f36fe1cf2d3aaa3
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now personally I am more than happy with relative imports, but
>> generally
>>>>>> as a project we have avoided them, so I think that limits what we
>> could
>>>> do
>>>>>> with a symlink based approach.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -ash
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/pradyunsg/vendoring
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3 Jul 2025, at 10:30, Pavankumar Gopidesu <
>> [email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Ash
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes agree option 2 would be preferred for me. Making sure we have all
>>>> the
>>>>>>> gaurdriles to protect any unwanted behaviour in code sharing and
>>>>>> executing
>>>>>>> right of tests between the packages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agree with others, option 2 would be
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 10:02 AM Amogh Desai <
>> [email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for starting this discussion, Ash.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would prefer option 2 here with proper tooling to handle the code
>>>>>>>> duplication at *release* time.
>>>>>>>> It is best to have a dist that has all it needs in itself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Option 1 could very quickly get out of hand and if we decide to
>>>> separate
>>>>>>>> triggerer /
>>>>>>>> dag processor / config etc etc as separate packages, back compat is
>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>> to be a nightmare
>>>>>>>> and will bite us harder than we anticipate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks & Regards,
>>>>>>>> Amogh Desai
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 1:12 AM Kaxil Naik <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I prefer Option 2 as well to avoid matrix of dependencies
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 at 01:03, Jens Scheffler
>>>> <[email protected]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd also rather prefer option 2 - reason here is it is rather
>>>>>> pragmatic
>>>>>>>>>> and we no not need to cut another package and have less package
>>>> counts
>>>>>>>>>> and dependencies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I remember some time ago I was checking (together with Jarek, I am
>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> sure anymore...) if the usage of symlinks would be possible. To
>> keep
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> source in one package but "symlink" it into another. If then at
>>>> point
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> packaging/release the files are materialized we have 1 set of
>> code.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise if not possible still the redundancy could be solved by
>> a
>>>>>>>>>> pre-commit hook - and in Git the files are de-duplicated anyway
>>>> based
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> content hash, so this does not hurt.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 02.07.25 18:49, Shahar Epstein wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I support option 2 with proper automation & CI - the reasonings
>>>>>>>> you've
>>>>>>>>>>> shown for that make sense to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Shahar
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 3:36 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]
>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As we work on finishing off the code-level separation of Task
>> SDK
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> Core
>>>>>>>>>>>> (scheduler etc) we have come across some situations where we
>> would
>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> share code between these.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> However it’s not as straight forward of “just put it in a common
>>>>>>>> dist
>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>> both depend upon” because one of the goals of the Task SDK
>>>>>>>> separation
>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>> to have 100% complete version independence between the two,
>>>> ideally
>>>>>>>>>> even if
>>>>>>>>>>>> they are built into the same image and venv. Most of the reason
>>>> why
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> isn’t straight forward comes down to backwards compatibility -
>> if
>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>> an change to the common/shared distribution
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We’ve listed the options we have thought about in
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/51545 (but that covers
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>> things that I don’t want to get in to in this discussion such as
>>>>>>>>>> possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>> separating operators and executors out of a single provider
>> dist.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To give a concrete example of some code I would like to share
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/84897570bf7e438afb157ba4700768ea74824295/airflow-core/src/airflow/_logging/structlog.py
>>>>>>>>>>>> — logging config. Another thing we will want to share will be
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> AirflowConfigParser class from airflow.configuration (but
>> notably:
>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> parser class, _not_ the default config values, again, lets not
>>>> dwell
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> specifics of that)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So to bring the options listed in the issue here for discussion,
>>>>>>>>> broadly
>>>>>>>>>>>> speaking there are two high-level approaches:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. A single shared distribution
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. No shared package and copy/duplicate code
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The advantage of Approach 1 is that we only have the code in one
>>>>>>>>> place.
>>>>>>>>>>>> However for me, at least in this specific case of Logging config
>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>> AirflowConfigParser class is that backwards compatibility is
>> much
>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>>>> harder.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The main advantage of Approach 2 is the the code is released
>>>>>>>>>> with/embedded
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the dist (i.e. apache-airflow-task-sdk would contain the
>> right
>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the logging config and ConfigParser etc). The downside is
>> that
>>>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>>>>>> the code will need to be duplicated in the repo, or better yet
>> it
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>> live in a single place in the repo, but some tooling (TBD) will
>>>>>>>>>>>> automatically handle the duplication, either at commit time, or
>> my
>>>>>>>>>>>> preference, at release time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For this kind of shared “utility” code I am very strongly
>> leaning
>>>>>>>>>> towards
>>>>>>>>>>>> option 2 with automation, as otherwise I think the backwards
>>>>>>>>>> compatibility
>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements would make it unworkable (very quickly over time
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> combinations we would have to test would just be unreasonable)
>>>> and I
>>>>>>>>>> don’t
>>>>>>>>>>>> feel confident we can have things as stable as we need to really
>>>>>>>>> deliver
>>>>>>>>>>>> the version separation/independency I want to delivery with
>>>> AIP-72.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So unless someone feels very strongly about this, I will come up
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> draft PR for further discussion that will implement code sharing
>>>> via
>>>>>>>>>>>> “vendoring” it at build time. I have an idea of how I can
>> achieve
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>> we have a single version in the repo and it’ll work there, but
>> at
>>>>>>>>>> runtime
>>>>>>>>>>>> we vendor it in to the shipped dist so it lives at something
>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>> `airflow.sdk._vendor` etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of repo layout, this likely means we would end up with:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> airflow-core/pyproject.toml
>>>>>>>>>>>> airflow-core/src/
>>>>>>>>>>>> airflow-core/tests/
>>>>>>>>>>>> task-sdk/pyproject.toml
>>>>>>>>>>>> task-sdk/src/
>>>>>>>>>>>> task-sdk/tests/
>>>>>>>>>>>> airflow-common/src
>>>>>>>>>>>> airflow-common/tests/
>>>>>>>>>>>> # Possibly no airflow-common/pyproject.toml, as deps would be
>>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> the downstream projects. TBD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts and feedback welcomed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
