You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ripple.apache.org by Brent Lintner <br...@gmail.com> on 2013/04/03 21:55:42 UTC
[Discuss] Removing Jasmine from .gitmodules
Hey all,
I want to remove our Jasmine dependency from .gitmodules because it is the
only thing used as a .git module, and because git submodules have (in my
experience) been more annoying to have than the benefit they provide.
Instead, it will be added directly to the project source tree (like
everything else that is not in the NPM registry).
This will also remove all use of .gitmodules, and will also remove a single
step in 'configure', leaving only npm calls, which will make installation
more simple and straightforward.
I will also be removing and re-adding the latest version of Jasmine.
Thoughts?
--
Brent
Re: [Discuss] Removing Jasmine from .gitmodules
Posted by Brent Lintner <br...@gmail.com>.
PS: I tried merging this branch into next (locally) to see how it went. You
can fast forward smoothly now, however, when you re-run configure (as such
would be done for newly added NPM deps), you will get an informative log to
remove the submodule directory first, if it still exists:
--------------
bower installing jasmine#1.3.1
bower error Local path is a local repository
There were errors, here's a summary of them:
- jasmine Local path is a local repository
To avoid losing work, please remove /home/.../ripple/thirdparty/jasmine
manually.
--------------
Running 'configure' again works as expected.
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Brent Lintner <br...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Update: So screw what I said. How about we just use something like
> http://bower.io. I mean, in general, it feels nicer than git submodules,
> but it still makes for yet another post-clone procedure. Could be useful
> down the road for stuff like jQuery and other client side libs, too, though.
>
> I have a PR up (now that the GitHub mirror is up) -->
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-ripple/pull/1
>
> ..good riddance to git submodules, at least. :-)
>
> Yay/Nay?
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Brent Lintner <br...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> >> Cordova-js uses jasmine-node as a devDependency and it seems to work
>> out
>> >> fine.
>>
>> Alas, I was hoping jasmine-node would be sufficient, but I realized it
>> does not seem to include any of Jasmine's CSS files by default (not
>> surprised..), which are currently used for the browser based test runner
>> (i.e. jake btest). Regardless of any questions of "do we need a browser
>> based runner?" or seeing if they project will include Jasmine's CSS files,
>> it seems like jasmine-node is not ideal.. :-s
>>
>> However, regarding pulling in Jasmine as a tar.gz URL from GitHub:
>>
>> That works at first, but npm exits prematurely for any tagged release (ex
>> v1.3.1), because package.json has only existed in the project after the
>> last tag. Urrrrgh.. So, you can include it by referencing a specific SHA in
>> master (ex: version says 2.0.0-alpha..
>> https://github.com/pivotal/jasmine/archive/9c4467bac0f892ce133f9ca0b53e818d53f303d5.tar.gz
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> IMO, if it makes it easier and there are no API breakages, perhaps it is
>> alright to clone Jasmine from a non-release commit tip (given there are no
>> breakages with using a 2.x.x version). I could go either way.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Cordova-js uses jasmine-node as a devDependency and it seems to work out
>>> fine.
>>>
>>> If someone runs npm install --production they will only get what's under
>>> dependencies in package.json, not devDependencies [1].
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9268259/how-do-you-install-development-o
>>> nly-npm-modules-for-node-js-package-json<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9268259/how-do-you-install-development-only-npm-modules-for-node-js-package-json>
>>>
>>> On 4/11/13 6:14 PM, "Brent Lintner" <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Good question, lol.. that might be even better, and fix the issue I was
>>> >talking about. Perhaps even a GitHub commit URL if that is possible.
>>> There
>>> >is also something like jasmine-node that could work (which was not
>>> awesome
>>> >when we first started using node + jasmine). Perhaps I'll see about one
>>> of
>>> >those vs directly adding it to the tree, then. :-)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Yea axe that stuff
>>> >>
>>> >> Why can't this be added as a devDependency to package.json ?
>>> >>
>>> >> On 4/11/13 4:00 PM, "Gord Tanner" <gt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >+1
>>> >> >
>>> >> >submodules have always annoyed me. Cleaning up our installation / dev
>>> >>env
>>> >> >setup would be nice and tie in good with attempting to get `npm
>>> >>install`
>>> >> >support working
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Dan Silivestru
>>> >> ><da...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> +1
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I think we've talked about doing this for a little while.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Brent Lintner
>>> >><brent.lintner@gmail.com
>>> >> >> >wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> > Hey all,
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > I want to remove our Jasmine dependency from .gitmodules because
>>> >>it is
>>> >> >> the
>>> >> >> > only thing used as a .git module, and because git submodules have
>>> >>(in
>>> >> >>my
>>> >> >> > experience) been more annoying to have than the benefit they
>>> >>provide.
>>> >> >> > Instead, it will be added directly to the project source tree
>>> (like
>>> >> >> > everything else that is not in the NPM registry).
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > This will also remove all use of .gitmodules, and will also
>>> remove
>>> >>a
>>> >> >> single
>>> >> >> > step in 'configure', leaving only npm calls, which will make
>>> >> >>installation
>>> >> >> > more simple and straightforward.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > I will also be removing and re-adding the latest version of
>>> >>Jasmine.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Thoughts?
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > --
>>> >> >> > Brent
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> --
>>> >> >> Dan Silivestru
>>> >> >> +1 (519) 589-3624
>>> >> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >--
>>> >Brent
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Brent
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Brent Lintner
>
--
Brent Lintner
Re: [Discuss] Removing Jasmine from .gitmodules
Posted by Brent Lintner <br...@gmail.com>.
Update: So screw what I said. How about we just use something like
http://bower.io. I mean, in general, it feels nicer than git submodules,
but it still makes for yet another post-clone procedure. Could be useful
down the road for stuff like jQuery and other client side libs, too, though.
I have a PR up (now that the GitHub mirror is up) -->
https://github.com/apache/incubator-ripple/pull/1
..good riddance to git submodules, at least. :-)
Yay/Nay?
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Brent Lintner <br...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >> Cordova-js uses jasmine-node as a devDependency and it seems to work
> out
> >> fine.
>
> Alas, I was hoping jasmine-node would be sufficient, but I realized it
> does not seem to include any of Jasmine's CSS files by default (not
> surprised..), which are currently used for the browser based test runner
> (i.e. jake btest). Regardless of any questions of "do we need a browser
> based runner?" or seeing if they project will include Jasmine's CSS files,
> it seems like jasmine-node is not ideal.. :-s
>
> However, regarding pulling in Jasmine as a tar.gz URL from GitHub:
>
> That works at first, but npm exits prematurely for any tagged release (ex
> v1.3.1), because package.json has only existed in the project after the
> last tag. Urrrrgh.. So, you can include it by referencing a specific SHA in
> master (ex: version says 2.0.0-alpha..
> https://github.com/pivotal/jasmine/archive/9c4467bac0f892ce133f9ca0b53e818d53f303d5.tar.gz
>
> Thoughts?
>
> IMO, if it makes it easier and there are no API breakages, perhaps it is
> alright to clone Jasmine from a non-release commit tip (given there are no
> breakages with using a 2.x.x version). I could go either way.
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> Cordova-js uses jasmine-node as a devDependency and it seems to work out
>> fine.
>>
>> If someone runs npm install --production they will only get what's under
>> dependencies in package.json, not devDependencies [1].
>>
>> [1]
>>
>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9268259/how-do-you-install-development-o
>> nly-npm-modules-for-node-js-package-json<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9268259/how-do-you-install-development-only-npm-modules-for-node-js-package-json>
>>
>> On 4/11/13 6:14 PM, "Brent Lintner" <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Good question, lol.. that might be even better, and fix the issue I was
>> >talking about. Perhaps even a GitHub commit URL if that is possible.
>> There
>> >is also something like jasmine-node that could work (which was not
>> awesome
>> >when we first started using node + jasmine). Perhaps I'll see about one
>> of
>> >those vs directly adding it to the tree, then. :-)
>> >
>> >
>> >On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yea axe that stuff
>> >>
>> >> Why can't this be added as a devDependency to package.json ?
>> >>
>> >> On 4/11/13 4:00 PM, "Gord Tanner" <gt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >+1
>> >> >
>> >> >submodules have always annoyed me. Cleaning up our installation / dev
>> >>env
>> >> >setup would be nice and tie in good with attempting to get `npm
>> >>install`
>> >> >support working
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Dan Silivestru
>> >> ><da...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> +1
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I think we've talked about doing this for a little while.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Brent Lintner
>> >><brent.lintner@gmail.com
>> >> >> >wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Hey all,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I want to remove our Jasmine dependency from .gitmodules because
>> >>it is
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> > only thing used as a .git module, and because git submodules have
>> >>(in
>> >> >>my
>> >> >> > experience) been more annoying to have than the benefit they
>> >>provide.
>> >> >> > Instead, it will be added directly to the project source tree
>> (like
>> >> >> > everything else that is not in the NPM registry).
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This will also remove all use of .gitmodules, and will also remove
>> >>a
>> >> >> single
>> >> >> > step in 'configure', leaving only npm calls, which will make
>> >> >>installation
>> >> >> > more simple and straightforward.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I will also be removing and re-adding the latest version of
>> >>Jasmine.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Thoughts?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > --
>> >> >> > Brent
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Dan Silivestru
>> >> >> +1 (519) 589-3624
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >Brent
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Brent
>
--
Brent Lintner
Re: [Discuss] Removing Jasmine from .gitmodules
Posted by Brent Lintner <br...@gmail.com>.
>> Cordova-js uses jasmine-node as a devDependency and it seems to work out
>> fine.
Alas, I was hoping jasmine-node would be sufficient, but I realized it does
not seem to include any of Jasmine's CSS files by default (not
surprised..), which are currently used for the browser based test runner
(i.e. jake btest). Regardless of any questions of "do we need a browser
based runner?" or seeing if they project will include Jasmine's CSS files,
it seems like jasmine-node is not ideal.. :-s
However, regarding pulling in Jasmine as a tar.gz URL from GitHub:
That works at first, but npm exits prematurely for any tagged release (ex
v1.3.1), because package.json has only existed in the project after the
last tag. Urrrrgh.. So, you can include it by referencing a specific SHA in
master (ex: version says 2.0.0-alpha..
https://github.com/pivotal/jasmine/archive/9c4467bac0f892ce133f9ca0b53e818d53f303d5.tar.gz
Thoughts?
IMO, if it makes it easier and there are no API breakages, perhaps it is
alright to clone Jasmine from a non-release commit tip (given there are no
breakages with using a 2.x.x version). I could go either way.
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Cordova-js uses jasmine-node as a devDependency and it seems to work out
> fine.
>
> If someone runs npm install --production they will only get what's under
> dependencies in package.json, not devDependencies [1].
>
> [1]
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9268259/how-do-you-install-development-o
> nly-npm-modules-for-node-js-package-json<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9268259/how-do-you-install-development-only-npm-modules-for-node-js-package-json>
>
> On 4/11/13 6:14 PM, "Brent Lintner" <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Good question, lol.. that might be even better, and fix the issue I was
> >talking about. Perhaps even a GitHub commit URL if that is possible. There
> >is also something like jasmine-node that could work (which was not awesome
> >when we first started using node + jasmine). Perhaps I'll see about one of
> >those vs directly adding it to the tree, then. :-)
> >
> >
> >On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Yea axe that stuff
> >>
> >> Why can't this be added as a devDependency to package.json ?
> >>
> >> On 4/11/13 4:00 PM, "Gord Tanner" <gt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >+1
> >> >
> >> >submodules have always annoyed me. Cleaning up our installation / dev
> >>env
> >> >setup would be nice and tie in good with attempting to get `npm
> >>install`
> >> >support working
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Dan Silivestru
> >> ><da...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> +1
> >> >>
> >> >> I think we've talked about doing this for a little while.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Brent Lintner
> >><brent.lintner@gmail.com
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Hey all,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I want to remove our Jasmine dependency from .gitmodules because
> >>it is
> >> >> the
> >> >> > only thing used as a .git module, and because git submodules have
> >>(in
> >> >>my
> >> >> > experience) been more annoying to have than the benefit they
> >>provide.
> >> >> > Instead, it will be added directly to the project source tree (like
> >> >> > everything else that is not in the NPM registry).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This will also remove all use of .gitmodules, and will also remove
> >>a
> >> >> single
> >> >> > step in 'configure', leaving only npm calls, which will make
> >> >>installation
> >> >> > more simple and straightforward.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I will also be removing and re-adding the latest version of
> >>Jasmine.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thoughts?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Brent
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Dan Silivestru
> >> >> +1 (519) 589-3624
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >Brent
>
>
--
Brent
Re: [Discuss] Removing Jasmine from .gitmodules
Posted by Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com>.
Cordova-js uses jasmine-node as a devDependency and it seems to work out
fine.
If someone runs npm install --production they will only get what's under
dependencies in package.json, not devDependencies [1].
[1]
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9268259/how-do-you-install-development-o
nly-npm-modules-for-node-js-package-json
On 4/11/13 6:14 PM, "Brent Lintner" <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Good question, lol.. that might be even better, and fix the issue I was
>talking about. Perhaps even a GitHub commit URL if that is possible. There
>is also something like jasmine-node that could work (which was not awesome
>when we first started using node + jasmine). Perhaps I'll see about one of
>those vs directly adding it to the tree, then. :-)
>
>
>On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> Yea axe that stuff
>>
>> Why can't this be added as a devDependency to package.json ?
>>
>> On 4/11/13 4:00 PM, "Gord Tanner" <gt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >+1
>> >
>> >submodules have always annoyed me. Cleaning up our installation / dev
>>env
>> >setup would be nice and tie in good with attempting to get `npm
>>install`
>> >support working
>> >
>> >
>> >On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Dan Silivestru
>> ><da...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> >
>> >> +1
>> >>
>> >> I think we've talked about doing this for a little while.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Brent Lintner
>><brent.lintner@gmail.com
>> >> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Hey all,
>> >> >
>> >> > I want to remove our Jasmine dependency from .gitmodules because
>>it is
>> >> the
>> >> > only thing used as a .git module, and because git submodules have
>>(in
>> >>my
>> >> > experience) been more annoying to have than the benefit they
>>provide.
>> >> > Instead, it will be added directly to the project source tree (like
>> >> > everything else that is not in the NPM registry).
>> >> >
>> >> > This will also remove all use of .gitmodules, and will also remove
>>a
>> >> single
>> >> > step in 'configure', leaving only npm calls, which will make
>> >>installation
>> >> > more simple and straightforward.
>> >> >
>> >> > I will also be removing and re-adding the latest version of
>>Jasmine.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thoughts?
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Brent
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Dan Silivestru
>> >> +1 (519) 589-3624
>> >>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Brent
Re: [Discuss] Removing Jasmine from .gitmodules
Posted by Brent Lintner <br...@gmail.com>.
Good question, lol.. that might be even better, and fix the issue I was
talking about. Perhaps even a GitHub commit URL if that is possible. There
is also something like jasmine-node that could work (which was not awesome
when we first started using node + jasmine). Perhaps I'll see about one of
those vs directly adding it to the tree, then. :-)
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Yea axe that stuff
>
> Why can't this be added as a devDependency to package.json ?
>
> On 4/11/13 4:00 PM, "Gord Tanner" <gt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >+1
> >
> >submodules have always annoyed me. Cleaning up our installation / dev env
> >setup would be nice and tie in good with attempting to get `npm install`
> >support working
> >
> >
> >On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Dan Silivestru
> ><da...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> I think we've talked about doing this for a little while.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Brent Lintner <brent.lintner@gmail.com
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hey all,
> >> >
> >> > I want to remove our Jasmine dependency from .gitmodules because it is
> >> the
> >> > only thing used as a .git module, and because git submodules have (in
> >>my
> >> > experience) been more annoying to have than the benefit they provide.
> >> > Instead, it will be added directly to the project source tree (like
> >> > everything else that is not in the NPM registry).
> >> >
> >> > This will also remove all use of .gitmodules, and will also remove a
> >> single
> >> > step in 'configure', leaving only npm calls, which will make
> >>installation
> >> > more simple and straightforward.
> >> >
> >> > I will also be removing and re-adding the latest version of Jasmine.
> >> >
> >> > Thoughts?
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Brent
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dan Silivestru
> >> +1 (519) 589-3624
> >>
>
>
--
Brent
Re: [Discuss] Removing Jasmine from .gitmodules
Posted by Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com>.
Yea axe that stuff
Why can't this be added as a devDependency to package.json ?
On 4/11/13 4:00 PM, "Gord Tanner" <gt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>+1
>
>submodules have always annoyed me. Cleaning up our installation / dev env
>setup would be nice and tie in good with attempting to get `npm install`
>support working
>
>
>On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Dan Silivestru
><da...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> I think we've talked about doing this for a little while.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Brent Lintner <brent.lintner@gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > Hey all,
>> >
>> > I want to remove our Jasmine dependency from .gitmodules because it is
>> the
>> > only thing used as a .git module, and because git submodules have (in
>>my
>> > experience) been more annoying to have than the benefit they provide.
>> > Instead, it will be added directly to the project source tree (like
>> > everything else that is not in the NPM registry).
>> >
>> > This will also remove all use of .gitmodules, and will also remove a
>> single
>> > step in 'configure', leaving only npm calls, which will make
>>installation
>> > more simple and straightforward.
>> >
>> > I will also be removing and re-adding the latest version of Jasmine.
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Brent
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dan Silivestru
>> +1 (519) 589-3624
>>
Re: [Discuss] Removing Jasmine from .gitmodules
Posted by Gord Tanner <gt...@gmail.com>.
+1
submodules have always annoyed me. Cleaning up our installation / dev env
setup would be nice and tie in good with attempting to get `npm install`
support working
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Dan Silivestru <da...@gmail.com>wrote:
> +1
>
> I think we've talked about doing this for a little while.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Brent Lintner <brent.lintner@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Hey all,
> >
> > I want to remove our Jasmine dependency from .gitmodules because it is
> the
> > only thing used as a .git module, and because git submodules have (in my
> > experience) been more annoying to have than the benefit they provide.
> > Instead, it will be added directly to the project source tree (like
> > everything else that is not in the NPM registry).
> >
> > This will also remove all use of .gitmodules, and will also remove a
> single
> > step in 'configure', leaving only npm calls, which will make installation
> > more simple and straightforward.
> >
> > I will also be removing and re-adding the latest version of Jasmine.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > --
> > Brent
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dan Silivestru
> +1 (519) 589-3624
>
Re: [Discuss] Removing Jasmine from .gitmodules
Posted by Dan Silivestru <da...@gmail.com>.
+1
I think we've talked about doing this for a little while.
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Brent Lintner <br...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I want to remove our Jasmine dependency from .gitmodules because it is the
> only thing used as a .git module, and because git submodules have (in my
> experience) been more annoying to have than the benefit they provide.
> Instead, it will be added directly to the project source tree (like
> everything else that is not in the NPM registry).
>
> This will also remove all use of .gitmodules, and will also remove a single
> step in 'configure', leaving only npm calls, which will make installation
> more simple and straightforward.
>
> I will also be removing and re-adding the latest version of Jasmine.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Brent
>
--
Dan Silivestru
+1 (519) 589-3624