Hi I've pushed half of the old pull requests. It would be great if we could have some discussion on those patches. The following pull requests are still on my todo list for checking. I'll only be able to look at them in about 2 weeks from now.
* pr/29 * pr/32 * pr/40 * pr/43 * pr/45 Cheers 2017-05-25 23:09 GMT+02:00 Dominik Psenner <[email protected]>: > While applying the pull requests I stumbled upon pr/22 which is based on > the branch log4net-1.2.x. That branch has a lot of modifications but I am > unsure whether or not those changes have been merged into trunk or if there > has been a release made from that source. Stefan, do you recall what > happened to that old branch and why it existed? > > 2017-05-25 22:33 GMT+02:00 Dominik Psenner <[email protected]>: > >> >> >> On 25 May 2017 2:37 p.m., "Stefan Bodewig" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I've asked infra to remove the repo: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-14233 >> >> On 2017-05-25, Dominik Psenner wrote: >> >> > I have cloned the repository from [1] and fetched also all open pull >> > requests. Unfortunately it is not possible to apply or fetch the pull >> > requests into the new git repository directly. Therefore I began to >> > integrate them by applying them as patches. Some of those patches do >> look >> > promising and can have indeed some use. I can do a few sensible things >> with >> > the resulting changes: >> >> > * push them to the new git repository as named branches (like pr/old/7, >> > pr/old/9, pr/old/10, ..) >> > * push them to my mirror of the new git repository on github and open >> yet >> > another pull request >> >> > What do you prefer? >> >> I would have preferred if the original reporters had done that work >> themselves so the their authorship was clearly documented - alas that >> didn't happen. >> >> I'd say merge those that you consider valuable and create branches for >> those you'd prefer to discuss first. Some of them looked pretty big and >> may require a CLA. >> >> >> I'm going to keep their names as authors in the commits, but my name will >> show up as committer which is probably just fine. As first stage I am going >> to push them as named branches and we can then work look at them, one by >> one. >> >> Note that from saturday on I am going to be away for holidays for a >> little longer than a week, so this is going to become a task only after >> then. >> > > > > -- > Dominik Psenner > -- Dominik Psenner
