ci: Future of CI after Cirrus pricing change #1392

real-or-random · 2023-08-04T14:03:09Z

Roadmap (keeping this up to date):

I think the natural way forward for us is:

Move native Windows tasks to GitHub Actions (ci: Run "Windows (VS 2022)" job on GitHub Actions #1389 and ci: Remove "Windows (VS 2022)" task from Cirrus CI #1397)
Move SageMath task to GitHub Actions (ci, gha: Run "SageMath prover" job on GitHub Actions #1399)
Move native macOS tasks to GitHub Actions, this will convert them to x86_64 unfortunately (ci, gha: Run "x86_64: macOS Ventura" job on GitHub Actions #1394, ci: Remove "arm64: macOS Ventura" task from Cirrus CI #1404)
Move Linux tasks to the Bitcoin Core persistent workers or alternatively to GitHub Actions
- wine/msvc tasks (converting them to native windows in ci, gha: Run all MSVC tests on Windows natively #1401)
- wine/mingw tasks (ci, gha: Add Windows jobs based on Linux image #1398)
- actual normal Linux tasks (ci, gha: Add "x86_64: Linux (Debian stable)" GitHub Actions job #1396)
- special tasks like qemu/sanitizers (ci, gha: Move more non-x86_64 tasks from Cirrus CI to GitHub Actions #1406, ci: Move remained task from Cirrus to GitHub Actions #1409)

Possible follow-ups:

~~Consider using artifacts to move the Docker image from the Docker build job to the actual CI job (for Linux tasks).~~ (Not worth the hassle, the current approach seems to work well.)
Details

This should be a cleaner solution, but it adds some complexity. It's also worth checking if this avoids network issues. In terms of delay, this adds about 12 min uploading time to the Docker build job, but avoids about 1 min delay in the actual CI jobs as compared to the current solution that relies purely on the GHA cache (ci, gha: Add Windows jobs based on Linux image #1398). So this will speed up CI if we could avoid re-uploading existing artifacts, e.g., have another digest file that just stores the SHA256, and re-upload only if the SHA does not match. But all of this is probably not worth the complexity if the current approach with the cache turns out to be good enough.
Enable Valgrind on macOS again now that the macOS tasks run on x86_64 (Constant-time tests on macOS #1151, ci: Switch macOS from Ventura to Monterey and add Valgrind #1412)
Bring back some ARM testing (see for details: ci, gha: Run "x86_64: macOS Ventura" job on GitHub Actions #1394 (comment))
- Add a task for ctimetest on ARM64/Linux/Valgrind on Cirrus CI using free minutes or the self-hosted runner (ci/cirrus: Add native ARM64 jobs #1426)
- Add more ARM64 tests on QEMU (ci/gha: Add ARM64 QEMU jobs for clang and clang-snapshot #1414)
- Add ARM32 tests (ci/cirrus: Add native ARM64 jobs #1426 (comment))
Consider moving the git safe directory stuff to run-in-docker-action (ci: Make repetitive command the default one #1411)
After the migration, check if the build matrix still makes sense
cosmetics: Job names could need a rework
cosmetics: Printing of log files could be improved

Other related PRs:

Corresponding Bitcoin Core issue: bitcoin/bitcoin#28098

Cirrus CI will cap the community cluster, see cirrus-ci.org/blog/2023/07/17/limiting-free-usage-of-cirrus-ci. As with Core, the pricing model makes it totally unreasonable to pay for compute credits (multiple thousand USD / month).

The plan in Bitcoin Core is to move native Windows+macOS tasks to GitHub Actions, and move Linux tasks to persistent workers (=self-hosted). If I read the Bitcoin Core IRC meeting notes correctly, @MarcoFalke said these workers will also be available for libsecp256k1.

But the devil is in the details:

For macOS, we need to take also #1153 into account. It seems that GitHub-hosted macOS runners are on x86_64. The good news is that Valgrind should work again then, but the (very) bad is that this will reduce our number of native ARM tasks to zero. We still have some QEMU tasks, but we can't even the run the Valgrind cttimetests on them (maybe this would now work with MSan?!) @MarcoFalke Are the self-hosted runners only x86_64?

For Linux tasks, the meeting notes say that the main reason for using persistent workers is that some tasks require a very specific environment (e.g., the USDT ASan job). I don't think we have such requirements, so I tend to think that moving everything to GitHub Actions is a bit cleaner for us. With a persistent worker, Cirrus CI anyway acts only as a "coordination layer" between the worker and GitHub. Yet another way is to the self-hosted runners with GitHub Actions, see my comment bitcoin/bitcoin#28098 (comment)).

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

maflcko · 2023-08-04T14:11:01Z

Are the self-hosted runners only x86_64?

There is one aarch64 one. (It is required because GitHub doesn't offer aarch64 Linux boxes, and Google Cloud doesn't offer an aarch64 CPU that can run armhf 32-bit binaries)

real-or-random · 2023-08-04T14:13:31Z

Ok, then it probably makes sense to do what I suggested in #1153, namely move ARM tasks to Linux, and reduce the number of our macOS tasks.

maflcko · 2023-08-04T14:15:10Z

moving everything to GitHub Actions is a bit cleaner for us

Sounds interesting. I wonder how (and if) docker images can be cached, along with ccache, etc...

real-or-random · 2023-08-04T14:36:22Z

moving everything to GitHub Actions is a bit cleaner for us

Sounds interesting. I wonder how (and if) docker images can be cached, along with ccache, etc...

Yeah, we'll need to see.

And I agree that "in the short run it seems easier to stick to Cirrus for now, because the diff is a lot smaller (just replace container: in the yml with persistent_worker:, etc)" (bitcoin/bitcoin#28098 (comment)). We should probably do this first, and then see if we're interested in moving to GitHub Actions fully.

edit: I updated the roadmap above.

hebasto · 2023-08-05T12:29:45Z

For macOS, we need to take also #1153 into account. It seems that GitHub-hosted macOS runners are on x86_64. The good news is that Valgrind should work again then...

For such a case, it is good to see some progress in #1274 :)

hebasto · 2023-08-07T06:59:57Z

moving everything to GitHub Actions is a bit cleaner for us

Sounds interesting. I wonder how (and if) docker images can be cached, along with ccache, etc...

See #1396.

hebasto · 2023-08-07T20:28:29Z

Move native Windows tasks to GitHub Actions (solved by ci: Run "Windows (VS 2022)" job on GitHub Actions #1389)

Move native macOS tasks to GitHub Actions

(Optional, in the long run:) Move Linux tasks to GitHub actions

There are open PRs for all of the mentioned items. It would be more productive, if we somehow prioritise them to spend our time until Sept. 1st more effectively.

maflcko · 2023-08-08T08:39:08Z

It would be more productive, if we somehow prioritise them to spend our time until Sept. 1st more effectively.

I'd say the Windows/macOS ones are probably easier, since they don't require write permission and don't have to deal with docker image caching.

real-or-random · 2023-08-08T17:02:11Z

Yes, we should in principle proceed in the order of the list above. But it doesn't need to be very strict. For example, if it turns out that #1396 is ready by Sep 1st, we can skip "Move Linux tasks to the Bitcoin Core persistent workers".

a2f7ccd ci: Run "Windows (VS 2022)" job on GitHub Actions (Hennadii Stepanov) Pull request description: This PR solves one item in #1392. In response to upcoming [limiting free usage of Cirrus CI](https://cirrus-ci.org/blog/2023/07/17/limiting-free-usage-of-cirrus-ci/), suggesting to move (partially?) CI tasks/jobs from Cirrus CI to [GitHub Actions](https://docs.github.com/actions) (GHA). Here is example from my personal repo: https://github.com/hebasto/secp256k1/actions/runs/5806269046. For security concerns, see: - bitcoin/bitcoin#28098 (comment) - bitcoin/bitcoin#28098 (comment) I'm suggesting the repository "Actions permissions" as follows: ![image](https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/assets/32963518/bd18d489-784f-48ba-b599-ed1c4dfc34fa) ![image](https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/assets/32963518/632280e0-9c26-42eb-a0ed-24f9a8142faa) --- See build logs in my personal repo: https://github.com/hebasto/secp256k1/actions/runs/5692587475. ACKs for top commit: real-or-random: utACK a2f7ccd Tree-SHA512: b6329a29391146e3cdee9a56f6151b6672aa45837dfaacb708ba4209719801ed029a6928d638d314b71c7533d927d771b3eca4b9e740cfcf580a40ba07970ae4

hebasto · 2023-08-14T14:15:19Z

Move Linux tasks to the Bitcoin Core persistent workers

It seems reasonable to split this task in two ones, depending on the underlying architecture: x86_64 and arm64, because the GitHub hosted runners lack support for arm64.

real-or-random · 2023-08-15T17:08:32Z

@hebasto Hm, we currently don't have native Linux arm64 jobs, so we can't "move" them over. We could add some (see #1163 and #1394 (comment)).

I tend to think that is also acceptable to wait for github/roadmap#528, it's currently planned for the end of the year. Then we could move macOS back to ARM. Until that happens, perhaps we can add a QEMU jobs that run the ctimetests on MSan (clang-only) at least. Note to self: We need apt-get install libclang-rt-dev:arm64 and this works with

HOST="aarch64-linux-gnu" CC="clang --target=aarch64-linux-gnu" WRAPPER_CMD="qemu-aarch64"

(The real tests fail with msan enabled on qemu. I think this is because the stack will explode.)

I updated the list above with optional items.

maflcko · 2023-08-15T17:14:57Z

qemu-arm is a bit slower than native aarch64. You can use the already existing persistent worker, if you want:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/cd43a8444ba44f86ddbb313a03a2782482beda89/.cirrus.yml#L210-L212

(Currently not set up for this repo, but should be some time this week)

real-or-random · 2023-08-15T17:28:11Z

Sure, that's an easy option. I just think we're currently playing around with the idea to move everything to GHA, if it's feasible for this repo.

…ons job e10878f ci, gha: Drop `driver-opts.network` input for `setup-buildx-action` (Hennadii Stepanov) 4ad4914 ci, gha: Add `retry_builder` Docker image builder (Hennadii Stepanov) 6617a62 ci: Remove "x86_64: Linux (Debian stable)" task from Cirrus CI (Hennadii Stepanov) 03c9e65 ci, gha: Add "x86_64: Linux (Debian stable)" GitHub Actions job (Hennadii Stepanov) ad3e65d ci: Remove GCC build files and sage to reduce size of Docker image (Tim Ruffing) Pull request description: Solves one item in #1392 partially. ACKs for top commit: real-or-random: ACK e10878f Tree-SHA512: 1e685b1a6a41b4be97b9b5bb0fe546c3f1f7daac9374146ca05ab29803d5945a038294ce3ab77489bd971ffce9789ece722e0e0f268b6a7e6483a3aa782d532d

…tHub Actions fc3dea2 ci: Move "ppc64le: Linux..." from Cirrus to GitHub Actions (Hennadii Stepanov) 7782dc8 ci: Move "ARM64: Linux..." from Cirrus to GitHub Actions (Hennadii Stepanov) 0a16de6 ci: Move "ARM32: Linux..." from Cirrus to GitHub Actions (Hennadii Stepanov) ea33914 ci: Move "s390x (big-endian): Linux..." from Cirrus to GitHub Actions (Hennadii Stepanov) 880be8a ci: Move "i686: Linux (Debian stable)" from Cirrus to GiHub Actions (Hennadii Stepanov) Pull request description: Move more non-x86_64 tasks from Cirrus CI to GitHub Actions. Solves one item in #1392 partially. ACKs for top commit: real-or-random: ACK fc3dea2 but still waiting for Cirrus Tree-SHA512: 9a910b3ee500aa34fc4db827f8b2a50bcfb637a9e59f4ad32545634772b397ce80b31a18723f4605dc42aa19a5632292943102099f7720f87de1da454da068b0

hebasto · 2023-08-24T17:31:26Z

Enable Valgrind on macOS again now that the macOS tasks run on x86_64 (Constant-time tests on macOS #1151)

While it worked on macOS Catalina back in time, it seems a couple of suppression for /usr/lib/libSystem.B.dylib and /usr/lib/dyld are needed.

Branch (POC) -- https://github.com/hebasto/secp256k1/tree/230824-valgrind
CI -- https://github.com/hebasto/secp256k1/actions/runs/5967987235

real-or-random · 2023-08-25T08:29:18Z

Oh thanks for checking. Have you tried the supplied suppression file (https://github.com/LouisBrunner/valgrind-macos/blob/main/darwin19.supp)? If it doesn't solve the problem, we could try to upstream the additional suppressions, see also LouisBrunner/valgrind-macos#15.

hebasto · 2023-08-25T08:46:28Z

Have you tried the supplied suppression file (LouisBrunner/valgrind-macos@main/darwin19.supp)?

Yes, I have. It does not change the outcome.

UPD. I used https://github.com/LouisBrunner/valgrind-macos/blob/main/darwin22.supp as we run Ventura.

real-or-random · 2023-08-25T09:23:12Z

Do you think maintaining the suppressions is a problem? I don't think it's a big deal.

UPD. I used LouisBrunner/valgrind-macos@main/darwin22.supp as we run Ventura.

Okay, sure, I got confused and looked at the wrong file.

hebasto · 2023-08-25T09:26:15Z

Do you think maintaining the suppressions is a problem? I don't think it's a big deal.

You mean, in this repository?

real-or-random · 2023-08-25T11:37:12Z

Do you think maintaining the suppressions is a problem? I don't think it's a big deal.

You mean, in this repository?

Yes... I don't think it will be a lot of work, but I guess we should still submit it upstream first. If they merge it quickly, then it's easiest for us. I can take care if you don't have the bandwidth.

hebasto · 2023-08-25T14:43:01Z

Enable Valgrind on macOS again now that the macOS tasks run on x86_64 (Constant-time tests on macOS #1151)

While it worked on macOS Catalina back in time, it seems a couple of suppression for /usr/lib/libSystem.B.dylib and /usr/lib/dyld are needed.

FWIW, it works with no additional suppressions on macos-12.

hebasto · 2023-08-25T14:46:29Z

I can take care if you don't have the bandwidth.

It would be nice because I have no x86_64 macOS Ventura available.

real-or-random · 2023-08-25T17:11:52Z

FWIW, it works with no additional suppressions on macos-12.

Oh ok, should we then just use this for now?

I can take care if you don't have the bandwidth.

It would be nice because I have no x86_64 macOS Ventura available.

I don't have any macOS available. ;)

hebasto · 2023-08-26T10:12:54Z

FWIW, it works with no additional suppressions on macos-12.

Oh ok, should we then just use this for now?

Done in #1412.

hebasto · 2023-08-26T12:28:00Z

Do you think maintaining the suppressions is a problem? I don't think it's a big deal.

You mean, in this repository?

Yes... I don't think it will be a lot of work, but I guess we should still submit it upstream first.

See LouisBrunner/valgrind-macos#96 as a first step.

c223d7e ci: Switch macOS from Ventura to Monterey and add Valgrind (Hennadii Stepanov) Pull request description: This PR switches the macOS native job from Ventura to Monterey, which allows to support Valgrind. Both runners--`macos-12` and `macos-13`--have the same clang compilers installed: - https://github.com/actions/runner-images/blob/main/images/macos/macos-12-Readme.md - https://github.com/actions/runner-images/blob/main/images/macos/macos-13-Readme.md But Valgrind works fine on macOS Monterey, but not on Ventura. See: #1392 (comment). The Homebrew's Valgrind package is cached once it has been built (as it was before #1152). Therefore, the `actions/cache@*` action is needed to be added to the list of the allowed actions. #1412 (comment): > By the way, this solves #1151. ACKs for top commit: real-or-random: ACK c223d7e I tested that a cttest failure makes CI fail: https://github.com/real-or-random/secp256k1/actions/runs/6010365844 Tree-SHA512: 5e72d89fd4d82acbda8adeda7106db0dad85162cca03abe8eae9a40393997ba36a84ad7b12c4b32aec5e9230f275738ef12169994cd530952e2b0b963449b231

2635068 ci/gha: Let MSan continue checking after errors in all jobs (Tim Ruffing) e78c7b6 ci/Dockerfile: Reduce size of Docker image further (Tim Ruffing) 2f0d3bb ci/Dockerfile: Warn if `ulimit -n` is too high when running Docker (Tim Ruffing) 4b8a647 ci/gha: Add ARM64 QEMU jobs for clang and clang-snapshot (Tim Ruffing) 6ebe7d2 ci/Dockerfile: Always use versioned clang packages (Tim Ruffing) Pull request description: Solves one item in #1392. This PR also has a few tweaks to the Dockerfile, see individual commits. --- I'll follow up soon with a PR for ARM64/gcc. This will rely on Cirrus CI. ACKs for top commit: hebasto: ACK 2635068. Tree-SHA512: d290bdd8e8e2a2a2b6ccb1b25ecdc9662c51dab745068a98044b9abed75232d13cb9d2ddc2c63c908dcff6a12317f0c7a35db3288c57bc3b814793f7fce059fd

real-or-random · 2023-09-05T13:16:58Z

Add a task for ctimetest on ARM64/Linux/Valgrind on Cirrus CI using free minutes or the self-hosted runner

Hm, it appears that Cirrus' "Dockerfile as a CI environment" feature won't work with persistent workers (see #1418). Now that I think about it, that's somewhat expected (e.g., where should the built images be pushed?).

Alternatives:

Set up our own Docker pipeline on Cirrus (but that seems overkill)
Use the free minutes (but they're shared among all repos of bitcoin-core)
Go back to the QEMU approach and try to compile compiler-rt on our own (but that's a rabbit hole and doesn't cover gcc)
Don't use a Dockerfile (but that means we won't get gcc-snapshot, unless we build it every time or cache it somehow)
Do nothing (and wait for native ARM64 on GHA)

I think we should do one of the last two?

maflcko · 2023-09-05T13:26:26Z

A persistent worker will persist the docker image itself, after the first run on the hardware. I think all you need to do is call

podman image --file $docker_file --name --env $bla --name $bla_image_name && podman container kill $ci_bla_name && podman run -it --rm --name $ci_bla_name $bla_image_name ./ci.sh

Alternatively it may be possible to find a sponsor to cover the cost (if it is not too high) on cirrus directly, while native arm64 isn't on GHA.

I can look at the llvm issue next week, if time permits.

real-or-random · 2023-09-05T15:05:44Z

A persistent worker will persist the docker image itself, after the first run on the hardware.

Thanks for chiming in. Wouldn't we also need to make sure that images get pruned from time to time? Or does podman handle this automatically?

podman image --file $docker_file --name --env $bla --name $bla_image_name && podman container kill $ci_bla_name && podman run -it --rm --name $ci_bla_name $bla_image_name ./ci.sh

I assume the first step performs the caching automatically, rebuildung layers only as necessary? Sorry, I'm not familiar with podman, I have only used Docker so far.

Alternatively it may be possible to find a sponsor to cover the cost (if it is not too high) on cirrus directly, while native arm64 isn't on GHA.

Right, yeah, I'm just not sure if I want to spend time on this.

I can look at the llvm issue next week, if time permits.

Ok sure, but I recommend not spending too much time on it. It also won't help with GCC (I added a note above).

maflcko · 2023-09-05T15:13:48Z

Thanks for chiming in. Wouldn't we also need to make sure that images get pruned from time to time? Or does podman handle this automatically?

Yeah, you can also run podman image prune, if you want. Pull requests to bitcoin-core/gui should already run it on the same machines, but that seems fragile to rely on.

See:

https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/blob/9d3b216e009a53ffcecd57e7f10df15cccd5fd6d/ci/test/04_install.sh#L30

I assume the first step performs the caching automatically, rebuildung layers only as necessary? Sorry, I'm not familiar with podman, I have only used Docker so far.

Yes, it is the same. You should be able to use docker as well, if you want, which is podman-docker.

Right, yeah, I'm just not sure if I want to spend time on this.

If you mean reaching out to a sponsor, I am happy to reach out, if there is a cost estimate.

real-or-random · 2023-09-05T15:24:25Z

Okay, then I think this approach is probably simpler than I expected. I'm not sure if I have the time this week, but I'll look into that soon. (Or @hebasto, if you want to give it a try, feel free to go ahead, of course. My plan was to simply "abuse" the existing Dockerfile to avoid maintaining a second one, at the cost of a somewhat larger image. The existing file should build fine except that debian won't let you install an arm64 cross-compiler on arm64. So we'd need to add some check to skip these packages when we're on arm64, see https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/1163/files#diff-751ef1d9fd31c5787e12221f590262dcf7d96cfb166d456e06bd0ccab115b60d .)

If you mean reaching out to a sponsor, I am happy to reach out, if there is a cost estimate.

Okay, thanks, but let's first try docker/podman then.

maflcko · 2023-09-21T09:34:46Z

Anything left to be done here?

real-or-random · 2023-10-02T09:34:32Z

The migration is done, but there are still a few unticked checkboxes. (And I've just added two.) None of them are crucial, but I plan to work on them soon, so I'd like to keep this open for now. We could also close this issue here and add a new tracking issue, or open separate issues for the remaining items, if people think that makes tracking easier.

hebasto · 2023-10-02T19:22:53Z

https://github.blog/2023-10-02-introducing-the-new-apple-silicon-powered-m1-macos-larger-runner-for-github-actions/

maflcko · 2023-10-03T08:18:52Z

https://github.blog/2023-10-02-introducing-the-new-apple-silicon-powered-m1-macos-larger-runner-for-github-actions/

"With today’s launch, our macOS larger runners will be priced at $0.16/minute for XL and $0.12/minute for large."

real-or-random · 2023-10-03T19:38:09Z

github.blog/2023-10-02-introducing-the-new-apple-silicon-powered-m1-macos-larger-runner-for-github-actions

"With today’s launch, our macOS larger runners will be priced at $0.16/minute for XL and $0.12/minute for large."

This is a price decrease for private repos, and GHA remains free for public repos.

maflcko · 2023-10-03T19:39:40Z

Are large runners available for public repos?

real-or-random · 2023-10-03T20:01:49Z

Are large runners available for public repos?

Ha, okay, you're right. No, "larger runners" are always billed per minute, i.e., they're not free for public repos. And it seems that they're not planning to provide M1 "standard runners". At least github/roadmap#528 (comment) has been closed now. That means we should stick to the Cirrus runners for ARM.

real-or-random · 2024-01-31T14:34:50Z

And it seems that they're not planning to provide M1 "standard runners"

That has changed now: https://github.blog/changelog/2024-01-30-github-actions-introducing-the-new-m1-macos-runner-available-to-open-source/

real-or-random added the ci label Aug 4, 2023

hebasto mentioned this issue Aug 3, 2023

ci: Run "Windows (VS 2022)" job on GitHub Actions #1389

Merged

This was referenced Aug 5, 2023

ci, gha: Run "x86_64: macOS Ventura" job on GitHub Actions #1394

Merged

ci, gha: Add "x86_64: Linux (Debian stable)" GitHub Actions job #1396

Merged

This was referenced Aug 10, 2023

ci, gha: Add Windows jobs based on Linux image #1398

Merged

ci, gha: Run "SageMath prover" job on GitHub Actions #1399

Merged

hebasto mentioned this issue Aug 20, 2023

ci, gha: Move more non-x86_64 tasks from Cirrus CI to GitHub Actions #1406

Merged

hebasto mentioned this issue Aug 26, 2023

ci: Switch macOS from Ventura to Monterey and add Valgrind #1412

Merged

real-or-random mentioned this issue Aug 30, 2023

ci/gha: Add ARM64 QEMU jobs for clang and clang-snapshot #1414

Merged

real-or-random mentioned this issue Sep 20, 2023

ci/cirrus: Add native ARM64 jobs #1426

Merged

real-or-random mentioned this issue Oct 2, 2023

ci: Optimize build matrix #1048

Closed

real-or-random closed this as completed Oct 3, 2023

real-or-random reopened this Oct 3, 2023

real-or-random mentioned this issue Oct 26, 2023

ci/cirrus: Add ARM32 valgrind tasks #1433

Draft

real-or-random mentioned this issue Feb 22, 2024

msan: notate variable assignments from assembly code #1496

Merged

ci: Future of CI after Cirrus pricing change #1392

ci: Future of CI after Cirrus pricing change #1392

Comments

real-or-random commented Aug 4, 2023 • edited Loading

maflcko commented Aug 4, 2023

real-or-random commented Aug 4, 2023

maflcko commented Aug 4, 2023

real-or-random commented Aug 4, 2023 • edited Loading

hebasto commented Aug 5, 2023

hebasto commented Aug 7, 2023

hebasto commented Aug 7, 2023 • edited Loading

maflcko commented Aug 8, 2023

real-or-random commented Aug 8, 2023

hebasto commented Aug 14, 2023

real-or-random commented Aug 15, 2023 • edited Loading

maflcko commented Aug 15, 2023

real-or-random commented Aug 15, 2023

hebasto commented Aug 24, 2023 • edited Loading

real-or-random commented Aug 25, 2023

hebasto commented Aug 25, 2023 • edited Loading

real-or-random commented Aug 25, 2023

hebasto commented Aug 25, 2023

real-or-random commented Aug 25, 2023

hebasto commented Aug 25, 2023

hebasto commented Aug 25, 2023

real-or-random commented Aug 25, 2023

hebasto commented Aug 26, 2023

hebasto commented Aug 26, 2023

real-or-random commented Sep 5, 2023 • edited Loading

maflcko commented Sep 5, 2023 • edited Loading

real-or-random commented Sep 5, 2023 • edited Loading

maflcko commented Sep 5, 2023 • edited Loading

real-or-random commented Sep 5, 2023

maflcko commented Sep 21, 2023

real-or-random commented Oct 2, 2023

hebasto commented Oct 2, 2023

maflcko commented Oct 3, 2023

real-or-random commented Oct 3, 2023

maflcko commented Oct 3, 2023

real-or-random commented Oct 3, 2023

real-or-random commented Jan 31, 2024

real-or-random commented Aug 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading

real-or-random commented Aug 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading

hebasto commented Aug 7, 2023 •

edited

Loading

real-or-random commented Aug 15, 2023 •

edited

Loading

hebasto commented Aug 24, 2023 •

edited

Loading

hebasto commented Aug 25, 2023 •

edited

Loading

real-or-random commented Sep 5, 2023 •

edited

Loading

maflcko commented Sep 5, 2023 •

edited

Loading

real-or-random commented Sep 5, 2023 •

edited

Loading

maflcko commented Sep 5, 2023 •

edited

Loading