In another thread I read the following:
From the mail list, click once (single click, don't double click) the first message, hold shift, select the last message (alternatively you could click "Select all" at the bottom of the mail listing). Drag that to the Trash folder, hit delete, or press the delete button (take your pick ;) ).
I've got two questions. First of all, when I hit delete nothing happens (RoundCube CVS checked out May 2; Firefox 1.5.0.3 on Windows). Is this not implemented or is it not supported in all browsers yet? Second question regards the drag-and-drop. It would be nice to have a better indication of which folder you're dropping mail in, e.g. by giving that folder a nice background color.
And while composing this mailing I stumbled on to something else: it is not possible to save a message when composing. Am I missing the save button somewhere or is this not yet implemented?
Erik wrote:
In another thread I read the following:
From the mail list, click once (single click, don't double click) the first message, hold shift, select the last message (alternatively you could click "Select all" at the bottom of the mail listing). Drag that to the Trash folder, hit delete, or press the delete button (take your pick ;) ).
I've got two questions. First of all, when I hit delete nothing happens (RoundCube CVS checked out May 2; Firefox 1.5.0.3 on Windows). Is this not implemented or is it not supported in all browsers yet? Second question regards the drag-and-drop. It would be nice to have a better indication of which folder you're dropping mail in, e.g. by giving that folder a nice background color.
And while composing this mailing I stumbled on to something else: it is not possible to save a message when composing. Am I missing the save button somewhere or is this not yet implemented?
http://roundcube.net/?p=roadmap
- "Highlighting the folder drop-target"
- "Saving messages as Draft" (Feature Request #1326839 )
~Thomas
On Thu, 4 May 2006 7:59:27 +0200, Erik erik@prikbord.org wrote:
I've got two questions. First of all, when I hit delete nothing happens
This is implemented and is working for me. When you say you have the latest CVS, I assume you mean the anonymous login version, right? That's been out of synch with the development version for about a month now. If you do have the development version of the code (check the version of app.js - it should be 1.43 or so) then I don't know what the problem is, but I'd be very interested in finding out!
-Charles
On Thu, 4 May 2006 9:35:21 -0400, Charles McNulty charles@charlesmcnulty.com wrote:
On Thu, 4 May 2006 7:59:27 +0200, Erik erik@prikbord.org wrote:
I've got two questions. First of all, when I hit delete nothing happens
This is implemented and is working for me. When you say you have the latest CVS, I assume you mean the anonymous login version, right? That's been out of synch with the development version for about a month now. If you do have the development version of the code (check the version of app.js - it should be 1.43 or so) then I don't know what the problem is, but I'd be very interested in finding out!
I've got the anonymous version, so I assume I need to get the development version somehow. I've read in some other thread that SF is having problems with their CVS and there was a request for a nightly snapshot or something. Is such a nightly available somewhere? Or would it be possible to make this available until SF fixes whatever it is that's wrong? Any newer version would be welcome! Thanks in advance.
On Thu, 4 May 2006, Charles McNulty wrote:
On Thu, 4 May 2006 7:59:27 +0200, Erik erik@prikbord.org wrote:
I've got two questions. First of all, when I hit delete nothing happens
This is implemented and is working for me. When you say you have the latest CVS, I assume you mean the anonymous login version, right? That's been out of synch with the development version for about a month now. If you do have the development version of the code (check the version of app.js - it should be 1.43 or so) then I don't know what the problem is, but I'd be very interested in finding out!
I am using the anonymous cvs version, and don't have this problem, so it must be server specific, maybe something wrong with the trash folder? Client is Firefox 1.5.0.2 linux and ver 1.5.0.3 Windows.
On Thu, 4 May 2006 7:59:27 +0200, Erik erik@prikbord.org wrote:
In another thread I read the following:
From the mail list, click once (single click, don't double click) the first message, hold shift, select the last message (alternatively you could click "Select all" at the bottom of the mail listing). Drag that to the Trash folder, hit delete, or press the delete button (take your pick ;) ).
I've got two questions. First of all, when I hit delete nothing happens (RoundCube CVS checked out May 2
neither anonymous cvs on SF nor the webcvs shows the keybind changes - I've asked the developers already twice to consider either a workaround (post snapshots) or change the repository (possibly svn).
Apart from people cheering in the audience, nothing was heard from someone who actually has an up2date working copy. I guess they don't want any people testing new roundcube features anymore.
I still think RC is better than squirrel, imp etc. But if this project is going radiosilent to first-line testing volunteers, it'll sure make using roundcube less fun for me, and feedback nonexistent.
yes, I am deliberately being obstinate here - we're on week 6 or 7 now of not being able to see CVS updates here:
Here's todays SF-CVS's welcome error message:
The following error was encountered: Unable to determine IP address from host name for roundcubemail.cvs.sourceforge.net
I assure you that this is not due to my employers ISP...
This is the last time I'll bitch about this, up to the developers now to do something with it. I'll help out as much as I can - feel free to ask me for help. Like I said before, I can even host an SVN repo or even the entire website for you guys (free). OSS works if you involve the community as much as possible.
Cheers,
Auke
On Thu, 4 May 2006 21:21:01 +0000, Auke Kok sofar@foo-projects.org wrote:
On Thu, 4 May 2006 7:59:27 +0200, Erik erik@prikbord.org wrote:
In another thread I read the following:
From the mail list, click once (single click, don't double click) the first message, hold shift, select the last message (alternatively you could click "Select all" at the bottom of the mail listing). Drag that to the Trash folder, hit delete, or press the delete button (take your pick ;) ).
I've got two questions. First of all, when I hit delete nothing happens (RoundCube CVS checked out May 2 neither anonymous cvs on SF nor the
webcvs shows the keybind changes - I've asked the developers already twice to consider either a workaround (post snapshots) or change the repository (possibly svn).
I'm not advocating a move to a different server/system, just giving thoughts. While a move would possibly benefit us, what are some possible work arounds? Would we be able to create a read only CVS account that we could use instead? Is that possible?
Apart from people cheering in the audience, nothing was heard from someone who actually has an up2date working copy. I guess they don't want any people testing new roundcube features anymore.
That's a fairly harsh statement. They do want testers, but it's out of their hands with SF running the CVS. Yes, we could change, but I'm sure Thomas doesn't have the time to devote to changing everything over from CVS to SVN or from one server to the next. I don't know how much time goes into it, but it can't be easy. And without testers, nothing would get improved upon, so I'd say your statement is false.
I still think RC is better than squirrel, imp etc. But if this project is going radiosilent to first-line testing volunteers, it'll sure make using roundcube less fun for me, and feedback nonexistent.
See my previous statement...
yes, I am deliberately being obstinate here - we're on week 6 or 7 now of not being able to see CVS updates here:
The CVS has been down too long, and it's not just impacting you. There are plenty of forum dwellers that really want the CVS and have noticed that commits have "stopped". Well, it's disconcerning to tell people that the anonymous CVS has been having problems. I say SourceForge has finally reached it's max capacity, and can't function anymore. Yes the anon CVS is days behind usually, but 6 weeks is a bit much.
Here's todays SF-CVS's welcome error message:
The following error was encountered: Unable to determine IP address from host name for roundcubemail.cvs.sourceforge.net
I assure you that this is not due to my employers ISP...
This is the last time I'll bitch about this, up to the developers now to do something with it. I'll help out as much as I can - feel free to ask me for help. Like I said before, I can even host an SVN repo or even the entire website for you guys (free). OSS works if you involve the community as much as possible.
The site is separate from the CVS Repo in the first place, so hosting the site won't be necessary (from what I can tell). I hope you feel better, and the community doesn't lose you. We work with what we have. And what we have is little free-time and a few issues. The CVS works for the devs, and hearing that commits are there is really comforting. I'd love to see the changes, but it's not exactly necessary for me. Although I agree we should have the ability to get the new versions.
Cheers,
Auke
-- Brett Patterson Roundcube Forum Admin www.roundcubeforum.net
brett+roundcubeforum.net wrote:
I'm not advocating a move to a different server/system, just giving thoughts. While a move would possibly benefit us, what are some possible work arounds? Would we be able to create a read only CVS account that we could use instead? Is that possible?
yes, but SF doesn't allow that by policy afaik.
alternatively, one could upload cvs snapshots on a regular basis to the file area.
Apart from people cheering in the audience, nothing was heard from someone who actually has an up2date working copy. I guess they don't want any people testing new roundcube features anymore.
That's a fairly harsh statement.
I did that on purpose - I know they want testers but there is an issue that *they* need to fix (either SF or roundcube committers). Unless an action is taken, nobody is able to test new code, and this hurts *RC* more than me (or any tester).
the point I'm trying to make is that while I get the idea that the problem is acknowledged, nobody is trying to solve it. The only thing *I* can do is remind people and provide alternative solutions (which I can).
They do want testers, but it's out of their hands with SF running the CVS. Yes, we could change, but I'm sure Thomas doesn't have the time to devote to changing everything over from CVS to SVN or from one server to the next. I don't know how much time goes into it, but it can't be easy.
I have personally done this for 2 major projects (the entire Xfce project - over 20000 commits in 25 different trees, and I still maintain all project access and administrate it). While it takes some time, I could probably convert roundcube's CVS tree into a workable SVN repository in 20 minutes. I'm willing to do that (and maintain). But I need (developer) CVS access for this, or even better, a full CVS repository backup tarball (which SF is supposed to export for you on request through some system, so developers: go export me a repo backup tarball and post it online and I'll convert it as a test for you all).
Cheers,
Auke
Auke Kok wrote:
I'm not advocating a move to a different server/system, just giving thoughts. While a move would possibly benefit us, what are some possible work arounds? Would we be able to create a read only CVS account that we could use instead? Is that possible?
yes, but SF doesn't allow that by policy afaik.
alternatively, one could upload cvs snapshots on a regular basis to the file area.
Perhaps the project has out grown SF?
There are a lot of people (my self included) who are able and willing to donate SVN/Darcs repos and Trac etc.
On Thu, 4 May 2006, brett+roundcubeforum.net wrote:
Apart from people cheering in the audience, nothing was heard from someone who actually has an up2date working copy. I guess they don't want any people testing new roundcube features anymore.
That's a fairly harsh statement. They do want testers, but it's out of their hands with SF running the CVS. Yes, we could change, but I'm sure Thomas doesn't have the time to devote to changing everything over from CVS to SVN or from one server to the next. I don't know how much time goes into it, but it can't be easy. And without testers, nothing would get improved upon, so I'd say your statement is false.
I believe there have been a half dozen offers for hosting
subversion (myself included). Thomas or Charles wrote back to me and said thanks, but it wasn't needed, and that they expected to switch to SF's svn at some point. And since I now mirror the cvs tree in subversion for keeping my own local revisions merged, I offered to publicize that, but that was also turned down. I think the frustration comes from people who want to be part of the project, but aren't able to. I dread the huge merge that will come whenever SF finally comes back on-line.
Jon Daley wrote:
I believe there have been a half dozen offers for hostingsubversion (myself included). Thomas or Charles wrote back to me and said thanks, but it wasn't needed, and that they expected to switch to SF's svn at some point. And since I now mirror the cvs tree in subversion for keeping my own local revisions merged, I offered to publicize that, but that was also turned down.
Well, wasn't me, so it must have been Thomas, but from my perspective I definitely prefer a hosting provider such as sourceforge as opposed to a volunteer no matter how dedicated or experienced they are. The advantages of sourceforge are that 1) They won't burn out from all the work associated with hosting 2) They won't decide to stop hosting over disagreement with the direction of the project or personality disagreements. 3) redundancy in terms of personel. In other words if the volunteer hosting the project is abducted by aliens, we'd be up the crick.
Now obviously sf.net has some serious problems. I don't know how a hardware problem could possibly in a million years lead to a month of downtime. And I can't imagine how sf.net imagines that this is acceptable. I'd be open to moving to something else like sf.net (perhaps savannah.org) or switching to svn, but there are too many potential pitfalls to handing off hosting to a volunteer, IMO.
-Charles
Charles McNulty wrote:
Jon Daley wrote:
I believe there have been a half dozen offers for hostingsubversion (myself included). Thomas or Charles wrote back to me and said thanks, but it wasn't needed, and that they expected to switch to SF's svn at some point. And since I now mirror the cvs tree in subversion for keeping my own local revisions merged, I offered to publicize that, but that was also turned down.
Well, wasn't me, so it must have been Thomas, but from my perspective I definitely prefer a hosting provider such as sourceforge as opposed to a volunteer no matter how dedicated or experienced they are. The advantages of sourceforge are that 1) They won't burn out from all the work associated with hosting 2) They won't decide to stop hosting over disagreement with the direction of the project or personality disagreements. 3) redundancy in terms of personel. In other words if the volunteer hosting the project is abducted by aliens, we'd be up the crick.
Now obviously sf.net has some serious problems. I don't know how a hardware problem could possibly in a million years lead to a month of downtime. And I can't imagine how sf.net imagines that this is acceptable. I'd be open to moving to something else like sf.net (perhaps savannah.org) or switching to svn, but there are too many potential pitfalls to handing off hosting to a volunteer, IMO.
While that is totally understandable, and I do agree, you should understand peoples frustrations since RoundCube is such a very promising project.
The only solution, although not in RC's favor, is that it is branched by someone who does have the capacity to provide reliable development services to people who are submitting patches or want access to bleeding edge code so as to make patches as well as have proper bug tracking.
SourceForge is great, but it leaves a lot to be desired and there are also many other tools which allow people to be more productive than the in-house SF systems.
If you're willing at all to hear peoples donations in terms of hosting and repo, perhaps it would be at least worthwhile for people to put their whole offer on the table.
Colin Alston wrote:
Charles McNulty wrote:
Jon Daley wrote:
I believe there have been a half dozen offers for hostingsubversion (myself included). Thomas or Charles wrote back to me and said thanks, but it wasn't needed, and that they expected to switch to SF's svn at some point. And since I now mirror the cvs tree in subversion for keeping my own local revisions merged, I offered to publicize that, but that was also turned down.
Well, wasn't me, so it must have been Thomas, but from my perspective I definitely prefer a hosting provider such as sourceforge as opposed to a volunteer no matter how dedicated or experienced they are. The advantages of sourceforge are that 1) They won't burn out from all the work associated with hosting 2) They won't decide to stop hosting over disagreement with the direction of the project or personality disagreements. 3) redundancy in terms of personel. In other words if the volunteer hosting the project is abducted by aliens, we'd be up the crick.
Now obviously sf.net has some serious problems. I don't know how a hardware problem could possibly in a million years lead to a month of downtime. And I can't imagine how sf.net imagines that this is acceptable. I'd be open to moving to something else like sf.net (perhaps savannah.org) or switching to svn, but there are too many potential pitfalls to handing off hosting to a volunteer, IMO.
While that is totally understandable, and I do agree, you should understand peoples frustrations since RoundCube is such a very promising project.
The only solution, although not in RC's favor, is that it is branched by someone who does have the capacity to provide reliable development services to people who are submitting patches or want access to bleeding edge code so as to make patches as well as have proper bug tracking.
SourceForge is great, but it leaves a lot to be desired and there are also many other tools which allow people to be more productive than the in-house SF systems.
If you're willing at all to hear peoples donations in terms of hosting and repo, perhaps it would be at least worthwhile for people to put their whole offer on the table.
If your concern is that a volunteer host will disappear/ go out of business/ trash the system/ refuse to maintain/ etc. - why not perhaps make use of several of the offers that are on the table? Provide perhaps a redundant setup where two, three, etc volunteers mirror/host the same content. If one volunteer decides that they despise RC and/or the the devs, then let that volunteer go take a long walk off a short pier and allow the other diligent volunteers to continue to maintain the system.
As I have never dealt with svn, I am not sure of what all is involved in such a setup - but was just a thought.
Kevin L.
Charles McNulty wrote:
advantages of sourceforge are that 1) They won't burn out from all the work associated with hosting 2) They won't decide to stop hosting over disagreement with the direction of the project or personality disagreements. 3) redundancy in terms of personel. In other words if the volunteer hosting the project is abducted by aliens, we'd be up the crick.
To throw in my .02 USD (sadly, worth even less than before), the same could be said about the main developers. And isn't a CVS system designed to handle multiple people working on the same project? To enhance the community for this OSS, I think I fail to see the importance of locking it down to one system (i.e. SF.net).
That said, there must be an "official" version, and that can be maintained by the developers on SF.net, but I don't see a reason why there can't be an exact copy running on one or many volunteers' servers to enable access and updates for multiple contributers. The developers can pick and choose what changes they want to introduce to the "official" product without much effort (once SF.net SVN is going).
This can work the same way a wiki does, sure any one person can cause annoyance, but that is quickly alleviated by the many people working hard to keep this project going.
As a note of huzzah, I recently checked my mail in front of a number of non-techie, biz types and they were all v.impressed ("ooh, that looks nice, what email program are you using?"). great work all!
Randy
On Fri, 5 May 2006, Randy Noval wrote:
That said, there must be an "official" version, and that can be maintained by the developers on SF.net, but I don't see a reason why there can't be an exact copy running on one or many volunteers' servers to enable access and updates for multiple contributers. The developers can pick and choose what changes they want to introduce to the "official" product without much effort (once SF.net SVN is going).
This can work the same way a wiki does, sure any one person can cause annoyance, but that is quickly alleviated by the many people working hard to keep this project going.
I don't know how that would work - a wiki for C code sounds like a
bad idea to me. I don't think you can really have multiple source control systems -- maybe some sort of mirroring would work - but there has to be a main one that the developers use, and the other copy it. As for people getting mad and going away - it doesn't seem like you could get any worse than a month of downtime, when switching to some other provider.
Just got this from sourceforge. Also the status page here has finally been updated:
http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=2352&group_id=1
Looks like it still could be another week, but at least it's an update.
Date: 2006-05-05 11:22
Message: Logged In: YES user_id=597273
Greetings,
Site status has just been updated with regards to this. The gist is that it would have been up yesterday had we not had hardware issues with the new hosts. We don't want to go live with it until all hosts are fully operational and we feel that it'll be a marked improvement over the current situation.
I recommend your project consider switching to SVN rather than finding a new hosting provider, should you absolutely need a workaround. Otherwise, I suspect CVS will be fully operational again by the end of next week.
Thank you,
David Burley Quality of Service Analyst, SourceForge.net
Colin Alston wrote:
Charles McNulty wrote:
Jon Daley wrote:
I believe there have been a half dozen offers for hostingsubversion (myself included). Thomas or Charles wrote back to me and said thanks, but it wasn't needed, and that they expected to switch to SF's svn at some point. And since I now mirror the cvs tree in subversion for keeping my own local revisions merged, I offered to publicize that, but that was also turned down.
Well, wasn't me, so it must have been Thomas, but from my perspective I definitely prefer a hosting provider such as sourceforge as opposed to a volunteer no matter how dedicated or experienced they are. The advantages of sourceforge are that 1) They won't burn out from all the work associated with hosting 2) They won't decide to stop hosting over disagreement with the direction of the project or personality disagreements. 3) redundancy in terms of personel. In other words if the volunteer hosting the project is abducted by aliens, we'd be up the crick.
Now obviously sf.net has some serious problems. I don't know how a hardware problem could possibly in a million years lead to a month of downtime. And I can't imagine how sf.net imagines that this is acceptable. I'd be open to moving to something else like sf.net (perhaps savannah.org) or switching to svn, but there are too many potential pitfalls to handing off hosting to a volunteer, IMO.
While that is totally understandable, and I do agree, you should understand peoples frustrations since RoundCube is such a very promising project.
The only solution, although not in RC's favor, is that it is branched by someone who does have the capacity to provide reliable development services to people who are submitting patches or want access to bleeding edge code so as to make patches as well as have proper bug tracking.
SourceForge is great, but it leaves a lot to be desired and there are also many other tools which allow people to be more productive than the in-house SF systems.
If you're willing at all to hear peoples donations in terms of hosting and repo, perhaps it would be at least worthwhile for people to put their whole offer on the table.
Well, one option that is a great alternative to SF is OSUOSL. It's the Oregan State University Open Source Lab. Since RC is OSS, why not host it at OSL for free? phpBB just recently made the switch there :)
Now, they offer SVN (with anonymous access) and I can say that they're run from a University. So it's not just going to go away. Nor will any differences impact them in their decision to host. But, they do have requirements. Like they want to directly impact the OSU campus. While we can't do that right away, we could swing it to make it OSU's premier webmail system :) ;)
So check them out. I think it's a very viable alternative. If nothing else, the SVN repo can be stored there and the site elsewhere. It's something to think about. It wouldn't be immediate, you'd have to apply for space and such, but I can't see them turning us down other than for the fact that we don't directly impact the OSU community. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try!! :)
-- Brett Patterson Roundcube Forum Admin www.roundcubeforum.net
Brett Patters - Roundcube Forum Admin wrote:
Colin Alston wrote:
Charles McNulty wrote:
Jon Daley wrote:
I believe there have been a half dozen offers for hostingsubversion (myself included). Thomas or Charles wrote back to me and said thanks, but it wasn't needed, and that they expected to switch to SF's svn at some point. And since I now mirror the cvs tree in subversion for keeping my own local revisions merged, I offered to publicize that, but that was also turned down.
Well, wasn't me, so it must have been Thomas, but from my perspective I definitely prefer a hosting provider such as sourceforge as opposed to a volunteer no matter how dedicated or experienced they are. The advantages of sourceforge are that 1) They won't burn out from all the work associated with hosting 2) They won't decide to stop hosting over disagreement with the direction of the project or personality disagreements. 3) redundancy in terms of personel. In other words if the volunteer hosting the project is abducted by aliens, we'd be up the crick.
Now obviously sf.net has some serious problems. I don't know how a hardware problem could possibly in a million years lead to a month of downtime. And I can't imagine how sf.net imagines that this is acceptable. I'd be open to moving to something else like sf.net (perhaps savannah.org) or switching to svn, but there are too many potential pitfalls to handing off hosting to a volunteer, IMO.
While that is totally understandable, and I do agree, you should understand peoples frustrations since RoundCube is such a very promising project.
The only solution, although not in RC's favor, is that it is branched by someone who does have the capacity to provide reliable development services to people who are submitting patches or want access to bleeding edge code so as to make patches as well as have proper bug tracking.
SourceForge is great, but it leaves a lot to be desired and there are also many other tools which allow people to be more productive than the in-house SF systems.
If you're willing at all to hear peoples donations in terms of hosting and repo, perhaps it would be at least worthwhile for people to put their whole offer on the table.
Well, one option that is a great alternative to SF is OSUOSL. It's the Oregan State University Open Source Lab. Since RC is OSS, why not host it at OSL for free? phpBB just recently made the switch there :)
Now, they offer SVN (with anonymous access) and I can say that they're run from a University. So it's not just going to go away. Nor will any differences impact them in their decision to host. But, they do have requirements. Like they want to directly impact the OSU campus.
While we can't do that right away, we could swing it to make it OSU's premier webmail system :) ;)So check them out. I think it's a very viable alternative. If nothing else, the SVN repo can be stored there and the site elsewhere. It's something to think about. It wouldn't be immediate, you'd have to apply for space and such, but I can't see them turning us down other than for the fact that we don't directly impact the OSU community. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try!! :)
-- Brett Patterson Roundcube Forum Admin www.roundcubeforum.net
Forgot the website address... oops!! www.osuosl.org That's the main site. But if you look around you can see its services and such.
~Brett
On Fri, 05 May 2006 10:29:55 -0500, Charles McNulty charles@charlesmcnulty.com wrote:
Just got this from sourceforge. Also the status page here has finally been updated:
http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=2352&group_id=1
Looks like it still could be another week, but at least it's an update.
thanks for checking this and getting on their asses ;^)
Auke
Jon Daley wrote:
I don't know how that would work - a wiki for C code sounds like abad idea to me. I don't think you can really have multiple source control systems -- maybe some sort of mirroring would work - but there has to be a main one that the developers use, and the other copy it. As for people getting mad and going away - it doesn't seem like you could get any worse than a month of downtime, when switching to some other provider.
oops, my bad. not a wiki in implementation, a wiki in theory. basically, you have the "official" copy maintained by the core developers and then anyone who wants can work on one of the several SVN copies hosted by volunteers. i'm thinking mostly that it makes more sense to have multiple repositories available, though it creates a bit more overhead in terms of coordination. i don't know how difficult it would be to have the developers check the same code into / out of multiple servers, but i think that's a good way to go. maybe even just one primary "public" server so developers can more easily control what comes into / out of the "official" version. from there, the community takes over and can do with it what they will. the developers don't lose any control / access and the community gets to work on more current stuff. win-win.
just a thought
-
Auke Kok -
Bezaleel Support -
Brett Patters - Roundcube Forum Admin -
brett+roundcubeforum.net -
Charles McNulty -
Colin Alston -
Erik -
Jon Daley -
Randy Noval -
Thomas Bruederli