Guten Tag Ralph Goers, am Montag, 2. März 2020 um 16:34 schrieben Sie: > There is a difference between a user’s compile failing vs the build > having changed.
And which? Things don't work in the worst case either way and need to be adopted. Why exactly is getting rid of build support by ANT acceptable for users relying on that, but applying LOGCXX-319 might(!) not be? If I remember correctly, the concrete changes could even be adopted using automatic search&replace. > Given how old log4cxx is I would expect it to be > used in a fair number of places despite its version number. And a fair number of users applied either the available patches already since the last release or simply work with master already anyway. I can't remember anyone complaining about the changes introcuded by that concrete issue in the last years as well. > I > haven’t looked at the code myself but is there no way to keep it > backward compatible while also keeping the new changes? In my opinion this is an unnecessary meta-discussion until a concrete problem has been described introduced by LOGCXX-319 or other changes. So at least I won't reconsider each and every change since the last release. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Thorsten Schöning -- Thorsten Schöning E-Mail: thorsten.schoen...@am-soft.de AM-SoFT IT-Systeme http://www.AM-SoFT.de/ Telefon...........05151- 9468- 55 Fax...............05151- 9468- 88 Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04 AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow
