10:50 a.m.
Hello Jon Ciesla,
My name is Artiom, and I'm happy Fedora user :)
I've noticed that wesnoth version 1.4 has been released, but
unfortunately in repo we have 1.2.8.
Here http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/WesnothBinariesLinux#Fedora I found
your contact,
and I ask you, please, build update for this version too. I'm sure many
others wesnoth's lovers waiting for it.
I've got it built for F9/rawhide, but since it looks like 1.4 breaks saved
game compatibility, I'm not sure I'm going to build it for F-8.
Since you're not the first person to ask me about this, I'm CCing the rest
of the Games SIG.
SIG, what do you think? Build 1.4 for F-8, or leave it in rawhide?
Thank you!
--
novus ordo absurdum
11:21 a.m.
New subject: wesnoth 1.4
Jon Ciesla wrote:
>
> I've noticed that wesnoth version 1.4 has been released, but
> unfortunately in repo we have 1.2.8.
> Here http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/WesnothBinariesLinux#Fedora I found
> your contact,
> and I ask you, please, build update for this version too. I'm sure many
> others wesnoth's lovers waiting for it.
I've got it built for F9/rawhide, but since it looks like 1.4 breaks saved
game compatibility, I'm not sure I'm going to build it for F-8.
Since you're not the first person to ask me about this, I'm CCing the rest
of the Games SIG.
SIG, what do you think? Build 1.4 for F-8, or leave it in rawhide?
I am not a regular Wesnoth player (just enjoy it from time to time in
single player mode), but from what I understand, network playing is a
very important reason people enjoy it.
AFAIK, to play on the official servers one must have to have the latest
version.
That should be weighted against the breaking of saved games. Don't know
which side of the balance should prevail, as I already said, I am not a
regular player.
--
nicu :: http://nicubunu.ro :: http://nicubunu.blogspot.com
Cool Fedora wallpapers: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro/wallpapers/
Open Clip Art Library: http://www.openclipart.org
my Fedora stuff: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro
11:37 a.m.
New subject: wesnoth 1.4
Jon Ciesla escribió:
> Hello Jon Ciesla,
>
> My name is Artiom, and I'm happy Fedora user :)
>
> I've noticed that wesnoth version 1.4 has been released, but
> unfortunately in repo we have 1.2.8.
> Here http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/WesnothBinariesLinux#Fedora I found
> your contact,
> and I ask you, please, build update for this version too. I'm sure many
> others wesnoth's lovers waiting for it.
>
I've got it built for F9/rawhide, but since it looks like 1.4 breaks saved
game compatibility, I'm not sure I'm going to build it for F-8.
Since you're not the first person to ask me about this, I'm CCing the rest
of the Games SIG.
SIG, what do you think? Build 1.4 for F-8, or leave it in rawhide?
> Thank you!
>
>
There have been earlier updates for Wesnoth that also broke save-game
compatibility, and to my knowledge, it wasn't so much of a problem. I'd
like to have the latest available for F8 as well as for F9, I know I
wouldn't mind playing through the campaigns again, but I'm not sure
about other users... I wish there was a way to get more player awareness
of this... Maybe a poll in fedoraforum.org's gaming forum?
12:05 p.m.
New subject: wesnoth 1.4
>>>> "JC" == Jon Ciesla
<limb(a)jcomserv.net> writes:
JC> I've got it built for F9/rawhide, but since it looks like 1.4
JC> breaks saved game compatibility, I'm not sure I'm going to build
JC> it for F-8.
I have always avoided breaking Nazghul saved games in stable Fedora
releases, because the updates happen automatically and you don't want
users being broken overnight because they happened to let an update
happen.
I also work to make my upstream aware of this kind of thing, because
in their mind you just don't build a newer version if you have a game
in progress and that doesn't really mesh with how distros work. So
far they've been receptive and helpful.
If someone really wants new features, I'm happy to give them a koji
build they can install manually with the understanding that it breaks
their games. But overnight breakage of existing games is right out.
- J<
12:17 p.m.
New subject: wesnoth 1.4
01 Apr 2008 12:05:19 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu>:
I also work to make my upstream aware of this kind of thing,
because
in their mind you just don't build a newer version if you have a game
in progress and that doesn't really mesh with how distros work. So
far they've been receptive and helpful.
If someone really wants new features, I'm happy to give them a koji
build they can install manually with the understanding that it breaks
their games. But overnight breakage of existing games is right out.
Not in that case - average user wants network gaming but w/o this
update it will be impossible AFAIK. So every player would need to get
and install Koji build.
--
With best regards!
12:42 p.m.
New subject: wesnoth 1.4
>>>>> "JC" == Jon Ciesla
<limb(a)jcomserv.net> writes:
JC> I've got it built for F9/rawhide, but since it looks like 1.4
JC> breaks saved game compatibility, I'm not sure I'm going to build
JC> it for F-8.
I have always avoided breaking Nazghul saved games in stable Fedora
releases, because the updates happen automatically and you don't want
users being broken overnight because they happened to let an update
happen.
I also work to make my upstream aware of this kind of thing, because
in their mind you just don't build a newer version if you have a game
in progress and that doesn't really mesh with how distros work. So
far they've been receptive and helpful.
If someone really wants new features, I'm happy to give them a koji
build they can install manually with the understanding that it breaks
their games. But overnight breakage of existing games is right out.
Even to preserve other existing functionality, i.e. network play?
- J<
--
novus ordo absurdum
1:45 p.m.
New subject: wesnoth 1.4
>>>>>> "JC" == Jon Ciesla <limb(a)jcomserv.net> writes:
>
> JC> I've got it built for F9/rawhide, but since it looks like 1.4
> JC> breaks saved game compatibility, I'm not sure I'm going to build
> JC> it for F-8.
>
> I have always avoided breaking Nazghul saved games in stable Fedora
> releases, because the updates happen automatically and you don't want
> users being broken overnight because they happened to let an update
> happen.
>
> I also work to make my upstream aware of this kind of thing, because
> in their mind you just don't build a newer version if you have a game
> in progress and that doesn't really mesh with how distros work. So
> far they've been receptive and helpful.
>
> If someone really wants new features, I'm happy to give them a koji
> build they can install manually with the understanding that it breaks
> their games. But overnight breakage of existing games is right out.
Even to preserve other existing functionality, i.e. network play?
FYI, it is now built in Koji, but I've not done a Bodhi update for it yet,
so the kittens are safe.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=44545
Can any regular players comment? And possibly d/l the koji build and test
against their saved games? My assertion that 1.4 broke saved games is
based on anecdotal evidence, not direct observation.
> - J<
>
--
novus ordo absurdum
--
novus ordo absurdum
2:50 p.m.
New subject: wesnoth 1.4
Jon Ciesla пишет:
>>>>>>> "JC" == Jon Ciesla
<limb(a)jcomserv.net> writes:
>>>>>>>
>> JC> I've got it built for F9/rawhide, but since it looks like 1.4
>> JC> breaks saved game compatibility, I'm not sure I'm going to build
>> JC> it for F-8.
>>
>> I have always avoided breaking Nazghul saved games in stable Fedora
>> releases, because the updates happen automatically and you don't want
>> users being broken overnight because they happened to let an update
>> happen.
>>
>> I also work to make my upstream aware of this kind of thing, because
>> in their mind you just don't build a newer version if you have a game
>> in progress and that doesn't really mesh with how distros work. So
>> far they've been receptive and helpful.
>>
>> If someone really wants new features, I'm happy to give them a koji
>> build they can install manually with the understanding that it breaks
>> their games. But overnight breakage of existing games is right out.
>>
> Even to preserve other existing functionality, i.e. network play?
>
>
FYI, it is now built in Koji, but I've not done a Bodhi update for it yet,
so the kittens are safe.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=44545
Can any regular players comment? And possibly d/l the koji build and test
against their saved games? My assertion that 1.4 broke saved games is
based on anecdotal evidence, not direct observation.
It's break old saves. Just tested.
>> - J<
>>
>>
> --
> novus ordo absurdum
>
>
12:26 p.m.
New subject: wesnoth 1.4
I wanted to add some other notes to this thread since there was at least
some hint of back porting.
First is that there was some discussion a while back that Wesnoth should
try to put out major stable releases about every 6 months instead of about
every year. This means the save game versus network play issues are going
to be coming up more often.
Another thing to note is that the wesnoth build system has a way to
override the preferences directory (that includes saved games) so that
you can reasonably have multiple versions installed at the same time that
don't conflict. I do this since I do a lot of build testing with typically
the last stable release tree and trunk. (Though recently I have separate
installs for testing automake builds and scons builds separately.)
While I don't know if the current maintainer would want to do this, but
it certainly be possible for the maintainer to use versioned install
locations and preference locations, so that players could finish up
their existing games with the older version while still being able to
play multiplayer games with the current version.
10:14 p.m.
New subject: wesnoth 1.4
I am personally disappointed that we would avoid upgrading wesnoth in
order to maintain saved game compatibility. I believe that maintaining
the ability to play on the network is more important.
This also brings up a few new problems:
1) What about security maintenance? A security hole could be found in
1.2.8 either client or server. Will upstream continue to maintain that
version? If so, for how long?
2) It was suggested in the bodhi ticket that users of older
distributions should use a manual 3rd party repository in order to
obtain a newer save-game incompatible version of wesnoth. This method
seems undesirable to me for a number of additional reasons (guaranteeing
that users of this repo actually get updates, security considerations).
3) Keeping Fedora versions on older wesnoth releases might be less of a
problem due to the only ~13 month lifecycle. But what about wesnoth in
EPEL? Big can of worms.
4) Downloadable content (maps, campaigns, etc.) for the older version
became abandoned and more scarce as 1.4.x supplanted 1.2.x. New wesnoth
users in the coming months will be increasingly frustrated that content
they see on the websites/forums do not match what is available/usable in
Fedora. This increases the perception that Fedora is not properly
maintaining wesnoth, and perhaps you want to use another distro instead.
There are a number of difficult drawbacks and hoops we have to jump
through if we refuse to upgrade wesnoth to the latest stable as a matter
of policy. Is this refusal worth these many drawbacks?
Perhaps we should upgrade wesnoth to the latest stable, and provide the
current older version *somewhere else* unsupported in case people want
to play their older save games. The release notes of the update and
elsewhere (wesnoth.org and fedora wiki) can mention how to downgrade and
avoid yum upgrades.
I realize this is a balancing act, but the reasons against upgrading are
in the minority compared to the benefits both short and long-term.
Warren Togami
wtogami(a)redhat.com
11:26 p.m.
New subject: wesnoth 1.4
Warren Togami <wtogami@...> writes:
I am personally disappointed that we would avoid upgrading wesnoth
in
order to maintain saved game compatibility. I believe that maintaining
the ability to play on the network is more important.
There are still servers for 1.2, and in fact you automatically get redirected
to one when you try connecting to the default server with a 1.2.x version. (I
tried it a few hours ago.) There are few people on it, that's sure. But the
server does exist.
1) What about security maintenance? A security hole could be found
in
1.2.8 either client or server. Will upstream continue to maintain that
version? If so, for how long?
That's a good question. On the other hand, security fixes can be backported,
and there might even be other people (e.g. Debian) doing the work for us.
2) It was suggested in the bodhi ticket that users of older
distributions should use a manual 3rd party repository in order to
obtain a newer save-game incompatible version of wesnoth. This method
seems undesirable to me for a number of additional reasons (guaranteeing
that users of this repo actually get updates, security considerations).
To me, it looks like the best solution. There are arguments both for upgrading
to 1.4 and for keeping 1.2. If there's a repository on e.g. fedorapeople.org
with 1.4, it allows users to make an informed choice.
And of course, there's also the option to upgrade to Fedora 9 which is around
the corner, though that may be undesirable for other reasons, which is the
point of a backport repository.
3) Keeping Fedora versions on older wesnoth releases might be less of
a
problem due to the only ~13 month lifecycle. But what about wesnoth in
EPEL? Big can of worms.
You have to be even more careful with upgrading things in EPEL. People who use
an enterprise distribution really don't want the software to break things under
them.
4) Downloadable content (maps, campaigns, etc.) for the older
version
became abandoned and more scarce as 1.4.x supplanted 1.2.x. New wesnoth
users in the coming months will be increasingly frustrated that content
they see on the websites/forums do not match what is available/usable in
Fedora. This increases the perception that Fedora is not properly
maintaining wesnoth, and perhaps you want to use another distro instead.
On the other hand, there's a lot of existing content for 1.2 which users may
have already downloaded and which will break with the upgrade. Not only the
savegames are backwards-incompatible, but also all the downloaded content. And
there isn't even always a 1.4 version available (and even if that was the case,
redownloading dozens of addons is a PITA).
There are a number of difficult drawbacks and hoops we have to jump
through if we refuse to upgrade wesnoth to the latest stable as a matter
of policy. Is this refusal worth these many drawbacks?
This isn't just a matter of policy. Breaking savegames in an update to a stable
distribution isn't something to be taken lightly. Sure, if you primarily play
multiplayer, you'll want to always have the latest version because that's what
most people on the multiplayer servers will be running, but if you primarily
play campaigns, you really don't want an automated upgrade breaking all your
savegames and all the third-party campaigns you had installed! Campaigns are
something you can be playing for weeks. Wesnoth isn't just a multiplayer
client!
Perhaps we should upgrade wesnoth to the latest stable, and provide
the
current older version *somewhere else* unsupported in case people want
to play their older save games. The release notes of the update and
elsewhere (wesnoth.org and fedora wiki) can mention how to downgrade and
avoid yum upgrades.
Upgrading by default and providing the older version elsewhere is only feasible
if they can be installed in parallel and if the new version is changed to use a
versioned data directory so the existing savefiles will work with the compat
package. Or at the very least the older version provided elsewhere has to use a
higher Epoch than the official package, but IMHO that's an ugly hack.
You can't really expect end users to:
1. manually downgrade a package and
2. manually exclude the package from upgrades.
I realize this is a balancing act, but the reasons against upgrading
are
in the minority compared to the benefits both short and long-term.
I disagree, for reasons explained above (Wesnoth isn't only networked
multiplayer).
I'm usually in favor of upgrading applications to the latest versions (I like
how Fedora usually does that) unless there's a good reason not to, but IMHO
game upgrades which break savegame compatibility are such a good reason, and in
this case, there's also the issue of downloadable content. It's not like Fedora
9 is so far away.
Kevin Kofler
9:05 a.m.
New subject: wesnoth 1.4
Warren Togami <wtogami@...> writes:
> I am personally disappointed that we would avoid upgrading wesnoth in
> order to maintain saved game compatibility. I believe that maintaining
> the ability to play on the network is more important.
There are still servers for 1.2, and in fact you automatically get
redirected
to one when you try connecting to the default server with a 1.2.x version.
(I
tried it a few hours ago.) There are few people on it, that's sure. But
the
server does exist.
> 1) What about security maintenance? A security hole could be found in
> 1.2.8 either client or server. Will upstream continue to maintain that
> version? If so, for how long?
That's a good question. On the other hand, security fixes can be
backported,
and there might even be other people (e.g. Debian) doing the work for us.
> 2) It was suggested in the bodhi ticket that users of older
> distributions should use a manual 3rd party repository in order to
> obtain a newer save-game incompatible version of wesnoth. This method
> seems undesirable to me for a number of additional reasons (guaranteeing
> that users of this repo actually get updates, security considerations).
To me, it looks like the best solution. There are arguments both for
upgrading
to 1.4 and for keeping 1.2. If there's a repository on e.g.
fedorapeople.org
with 1.4, it allows users to make an informed choice.
And of course, there's also the option to upgrade to Fedora 9 which is
around
the corner, though that may be undesirable for other reasons, which is the
point of a backport repository.
> 3) Keeping Fedora versions on older wesnoth releases might be less of a
> problem due to the only ~13 month lifecycle. But what about wesnoth in
> EPEL? Big can of worms.
You have to be even more careful with upgrading things in EPEL. People who
use
an enterprise distribution really don't want the software to break things
under
them.
> 4) Downloadable content (maps, campaigns, etc.) for the older version
> became abandoned and more scarce as 1.4.x supplanted 1.2.x. New wesnoth
> users in the coming months will be increasingly frustrated that content
> they see on the websites/forums do not match what is available/usable in
> Fedora. This increases the perception that Fedora is not properly
> maintaining wesnoth, and perhaps you want to use another distro instead.
On the other hand, there's a lot of existing content for 1.2 which users
may
have already downloaded and which will break with the upgrade. Not only
the
savegames are backwards-incompatible, but also all the downloaded content.
And
there isn't even always a 1.4 version available (and even if that was the
case,
redownloading dozens of addons is a PITA).
> There are a number of difficult drawbacks and hoops we have to jump
> through if we refuse to upgrade wesnoth to the latest stable as a matter
> of policy. Is this refusal worth these many drawbacks?
This isn't just a matter of policy. Breaking savegames in an update to a
stable
distribution isn't something to be taken lightly. Sure, if you primarily
play
multiplayer, you'll want to always have the latest version because that's
what
most people on the multiplayer servers will be running, but if you
primarily
play campaigns, you really don't want an automated upgrade breaking all
your
savegames and all the third-party campaigns you had installed! Campaigns
are
something you can be playing for weeks. Wesnoth isn't just a multiplayer
client!
> Perhaps we should upgrade wesnoth to the latest stable, and provide the
> current older version *somewhere else* unsupported in case people want
> to play their older save games. The release notes of the update and
> elsewhere (wesnoth.org and fedora wiki) can mention how to downgrade and
> avoid yum upgrades.
Upgrading by default and providing the older version elsewhere is only
feasible
if they can be installed in parallel and if the new version is changed to
use a
versioned data directory so the existing savefiles will work with the
compat
package. Or at the very least the older version provided elsewhere has to
use a
higher Epoch than the official package, but IMHO that's an ugly hack.
You can't really expect end users to:
1. manually downgrade a package and
2. manually exclude the package from upgrades.
> I realize this is a balancing act, but the reasons against upgrading are
> in the minority compared to the benefits both short and long-term.
I disagree, for reasons explained above (Wesnoth isn't only networked
multiplayer).
I'm usually in favor of upgrading applications to the latest versions (I
like
how Fedora usually does that) unless there's a good reason not to, but
IMHO
game upgrades which break savegame compatibility are such a good reason,
and in
this case, there's also the issue of downloadable content. It's not like
Fedora
9 is so far away.
I've been asked by multiple parties off-list in the past weeks, including
Warren, to upgrade F-8 to 1.4. Warren has also asked for F-7. I also
feel that F-9 is not far off (though now moreso). As a former SimCity
2000 player with a city over 5 million people, I understand the value of
saved games. I see from poking around that upstream intends to break
savegame compatibility again for 1.6, though possibly for the last time.
There really is no good answer here. I, like Warren, love that Fedora is
usually the (b)leading edge of FLOSS software, especially games. I also,
like Kevin, loathe the idea of breaking anything for users without a
really compelling reason. I've found no way to convert a 1.2 save to a
1.4 save, and it sounds like in the larger group of Wesnoth players,
inside and outside of Fedora, there is equal division between those
wanting to keep compatibility and those wanting to move forward.
I've been mulling over the best way to handle this in the last few days,
and I'm leaning toward a repo on fp.o for 1.4 for F-8. I can take the
koji builds for F-8, create a repo and an rpm for it, rsync it to fp.o,
and place a link to the whole business to my wiki page and send something
to f-announce.
A bad solution, but, I think, the one most satisfying whilst endangering
the fewest kittens.
Thoughts?
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
Fedora-games-list mailing list
Fedora-games-list(a)redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-games-list
--
novus ordo absurdum
10:07 p.m.
New subject: wesnoth 1.4
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 09:05 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
A bad solution, but, I think, the one most satisfying whilst
endangering
the fewest kittens.
Thoughts?
I think this is a situation where we have to bite the bullet and
maintain multiple parallel installable versions.
1:08 p.m.
New subject: wesnoth 1.4
Callum Lerwick <seg(a)haxxed.com> writes:
I think this is a situation where we have to bite the bullet and
maintain multiple parallel installable versions.
I really don't think there will be many users who need BOTH savegame
compatibility with 1.2 AND multiplayer 1.4. IMHO the people who need
multiplayer in Fedora 8 should just yum --enablerepo=development
upgrade wesnoth. Similarly, users who need 1.2-compatibility in Fedora
9 should install the Fedora 8 package. I just checked, and there
aren't any dependencies which could make this a serious problem.
Multiple parallel installations invariably go wrong somehow. unison is
the latest example of that.
/Benny
2:55 p.m.
New subject: wesnoth 1.4
>>>> "JC" == Jon Ciesla
<limb(a)jcomserv.net> writes:
JC> Even to preserve other existing functionality, i.e. network play?
Yes, because that functionality doesn't break due to the fact that an
update was pushed. I feel that taking an affirmative action to break
things is worse than taking no action and having other things broken.
If you like, push an update that, when started, opens a dialog
explaining the situation. It is also theoretically possible to push a
wesnoth14 package which users could install after removing the
existing package, but that gets a bit complicated and isn't really
pleasant.
- J<
3:02 p.m.
New subject: wesnoth 1.4
>>>>> "JC" == Jon Ciesla
<limb(a)jcomserv.net> writes:
JC> Even to preserve other existing functionality, i.e. network play?
Yes, because that functionality doesn't break due to the fact that an
update was pushed. I feel that taking an affirmative action to break
things is worse than taking no action and having other things broken.
If you like, push an update that, when started, opens a dialog
explaining the situation. It is also theoretically possible to push a
wesnoth14 package which users could install after removing the
existing package, but that gets a bit complicated and isn't really
pleasant.
So it'd be preferable to leave it in rawhide, add something to the release
notes for F9, and call it done?
- J<
--
novus ordo absurdum
3:17 p.m.
New subject: wesnoth 1.4
>>>> "JC" == Jon Ciesla
<limb(a)jcomserv.net> writes:
JC> So it'd be preferable to leave it in rawhide, add something to the
JC> release notes for F9, and call it done?
Well, remember that this is my personal opinion, molded by experiences
with one of my packages. You as the maintainer need to weigh all of
the issues; how much harm is done when a save game is invalidated? In
my case, users could have played for weeks. If you lose a save of a
single Wesnoth battle then there might not be such a significant
problem.
You definitely want to get the new version into F9, though. My
upstream asked me to push a CVS snapshot just to get the save-breaking
changes out previous to F9.
- J<
7:28 a.m.
New subject: wesnoth 1.4
>>>>> "JC" == Jon Ciesla
<limb(a)jcomserv.net> writes:
JC> So it'd be preferable to leave it in rawhide, add something to the
JC> release notes for F9, and call it done?
Well, remember that this is my personal opinion, molded by experiences
with one of my packages. You as the maintainer need to weigh all of
the issues; how much harm is done when a save game is invalidated? In
my case, users could have played for weeks. If you lose a save of a
single Wesnoth battle then there might not be such a significant
problem.
True. Thinking back to my heavier gaming days, if I'd suddenly lost my
city in SimCity 2000, there would have been blood.
You definitely want to get the new version into F9, though. My
upstream asked me to push a CVS snapshot just to get the save-breaking
changes out previous to F9.
It's already in F9. I'll think I'll just add something to the F9 release
notes, and leave the koji build for F8 to succumb to eventual garbage
collection.
Thanks everyone for the input!
- J<
--
novus ordo absurdum
12:05 p.m.
New subject: wesnoth 1.4
Hello All!
2008/4/1, Jon Ciesla <limb(a)jcomserv.net>:
I've got it built for F9/rawhide, but since it looks like 1.4
breaks saved
game compatibility, I'm not sure I'm going to build it for F-8.
Since you're not the first person to ask me about this, I'm CCing the rest
of the Games SIG.
SIG, what do you think? Build 1.4 for F-8, or leave it in rawhide?
Although I'm not a wesnoth player, I vote for updating.
--
With best regards!
12:10 p.m.
New subject: wesnoth 1.4
Hello All!
2008/4/1, Jon Ciesla <limb(a)jcomserv.net>:
> I've got it built for F9/rawhide, but since it looks like 1.4 breaks
> saved
> game compatibility, I'm not sure I'm going to build it for F-8.
>
> Since you're not the first person to ask me about this, I'm CCing the
> rest
> of the Games SIG.
>
> SIG, what do you think? Build 1.4 for F-8, or leave it in rawhide?
Although I'm not a wesnoth player, I vote for updating.
Sounds like all the feedback I need. I'll update for F-8.
--
With best regards!
--
novus ordo absurdum
5857
days inactive
5878
days old
19 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
Artiom Diomin -
Benny Amorsen -
Bruno Wolff III -
Callum Lerwick -
Gain Paolo Mureddu -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Jon Ciesla -
Kevin Kofler -
Nicu Buculei -
Peter Lemenkov -
Warren Togami