Sorry for the JIRA Spam

Hi there's been a cycle where a mailer daemon responded to a JIRA ticket because of an "undeliverable" notification and this response caused a new comment creating a new mail to the same failing address ... Over the course of the day I've been wading through the comments, deleting them one by one

Re: Sorry for the JIRA Spam

On 2017-01-18, Dominik Psenner wrote: > Interesting. I dont mind the spam unless i have to look at all the content > to filter the spam manually. Can i safely mark everything as read or is > there anything i have to catch up with? You can savely remove all comments for LOG4NET-435, there may be s

[ANN] New Committer Joe

Hi all on behalf of the log4net committers it's my pleasure to announce that Joe has been elected as a new log4net committer. Please join me in welcoming him. Cheers Stefan

ParallelAppender (was Re: log4net/pull/40)

Hi Harry, sorry for the delay and many thanks for hanging around and nudging us. This is obviously something we need. Harry has created a pull request that adds a feature of a ParallelAppender using TPL which, when enabled wraps all configured appenders and makes their logging asynchrounous. I'v

Re: ParallelAppender (was Re: log4net/pull/40)

On 2017-02-19, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > I've seen big overlap with Joe's work on an AsyncAppender which I think is https://github.com/JJoe2/log4net/commits/wip/AsyncAppender Stefan

Releasing 2.0.8?

Hi all apart from the LockRecursionException Joe has fixed, we probably should also bring back support for LogicalThreadContext for the .NET Standard build. I'll try to find time to build the release during the coming days, is there anything that should be done before starting the release process

Re: Releasing 2.0.8?

On 2017-03-06, Dominik Psenner wrote: > Testing and applying the patch for LOG4NET-553 is on my todo, but > can't see when I can free the spare time to actually get it done. I see. Maybe we really should get back into the habbit of more frequent releases. :-) If that's ever been the case, I'm n

Re: Releasing 2.0.8?

On 2017-03-06, Dominik Psenner wrote: > The codereview of 553 is fine and includes reasonable unittests. The > regression tests for all supported framework targets is the bottleneck here. What kind of regression tests do you envision? Is there anything I or a different member of the community can

Re: Releasing 2.0.8?

On 2017-03-07, Dominik Psenner wrote: > *hm* > Rereading the patch its probably safe to just apply the patch [1] and > check if all the unittests pass. > [1] > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12852105/log4net-DebugAppenderCategory3.patch That's something I can do, I'll run them

Re: Releasing 2.0.8?

On 2017-03-07, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On 2017-03-07, Dominik Psenner wrote: >> *hm* >> Rereading the patch its probably safe to just apply the patch [1] and >> check if all the unittests pass. >> [1] >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/128521

Re: [VOTE] Combine the project user and dev mailing lists into user@ and dev@

On 2017-03-08, Matt Sicker wrote: > I may be missing some mailing lists considering I just subscribed to half > of them less than five minutes ago. > This is a vote to merge the various Apache Logging Services mailing lists. > The proposal is to combine them as follows: > log4j-dev@, log4php-dev

[VOTE] Release log4net 2.0.8 Based on RC1

Hi all log4net 2.0.8 RC1 is available for review here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging/log4net (revision 18620) Details of changes since 2.0.7 are in the release notes: https://stefan.samaflost.de/staging/log4net-2.0.8/release/release-notes.html I have tested this with Mono

Re: [VOTE] Release log4net 2.0.8 Based on RC1

On 2017-03-08, Dominik Psenner wrote: > I am looking through the release and am going to give a few feedbacks > during the next hour. The first thing i noticed is this: > The website page 'features' still mentions that log4net has builds for > ancient .net framework versions. We should change tha

[RESULT] Release log4net 2.0.8 Based on RC1

Hi all with +1s by Remko Popma, Matt Sicker, Dominik Psenner and my own implicit one the vote has passed. I'll continue with the release process and will give the mirrors a bit of time before I send out the announcement mail. Thanks Stefan

[ANN] Apache log4net 2.0.8 Released

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The Apache log4net team is pleased to announce the release of Apache log4net 2.0.8. The release is available for download at https://logging.apache.org/log4net/download_log4net.cgi as well as via nuget https://www.nuget.org/packages

Re: cvs commit: logging-log4net/src/Util PatternString.cs

Nicko, I've seen that in several commit mails now. It seems the sources have been copied from a Windows system to a Unix box and committed from there. All files I've seen so far have been checked in with Windows line-ends inside the file. Is this intentional? I think somebody with CVS karma an

Re: cvs commit: logging-log4net/src/Util PatternString.cs

On Wed, 11 May 2005, Nicko Cadell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I use cygwin cvs which is configured to work in UNIX mode on my > WinXP box. This is not really by design, its just the way it is > right now. I don't want to make an issue of this, but I'm curious. Why are you using the UNIX mode in

Re: cvs commit: logging-log4net/src/Util PatternString.cs

On Thu, 12 May 2005, Nicko Cadell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I haven't played around with subversion too much and I don't know > how it deals with the LF / CRLF issue, I guess we will find out ;) Unlike CVS, Subversion treats all files as binary files - and doesn't do any keyword expansion eith

Re: Ron Grabowski as a committer for log4net

I've been a lurker on the log4net lists for a while now, so even if my "vote" isn't binding, I still want to express a strong +1. Stefan

Re: Ron Grabowski as a committer for log4net

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, Nicko Cadell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Logging PMC has voted in favour of adding Ron as a committer on > log4net. Congrats! Stefan

Re: svn commit: r331170 - in /logging/log4net: ./ trunk/

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Ron Grabowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there a switch for svn.exe to make it recursively touch only > folders? I don't think so. But on a Unix box or using Cygwin something like find . -type d ! -name .svn -print0 \ | xargs -0 -e svn propset PROPNAME PROPVAL shou

Re: Escaping the incubator

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Ron Grabowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think most people would agree that log4net has been considered > quite stable for a number of years. +1 In addition you've done two releases at Apache and demonstrated you work as a community already. Curt and log4net team, if yo

Re: [g...@vmgump]: Project logging-log4net (in module logging-log4net) failed

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Gert Driesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyone happen to know if an upgrade of Mono or NAnt was done prior > to this failure? We should be building against a hand-installed Mono 1.2.4, but I see there also is a system installed mono 1.2.3 on vmgump. I don't recall installi

Re: [g...@vmgump]: Project logging-log4net (in module logging-log4net) failed

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Gert Driesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Anyone happen to know if an upgrade of Mono or NAnt was done prior >> to this failure? > > We should be building against a hand-installed

[OT] How do you deal with signing the DLLs?

Hi, I'm turning to you for advice as the .NET open source project who's community I know best 8-) Since about a year and a half I've talen over maintaining XMLUnit which has a Java and a .NET version. A few weeks ago I released the .NET version and now a user asked me to release a strongly named

Re: abandoned?

Disclaimer: even though I own and use an @apache.org address I'm not a log4net developer, only a user and interested observer - and a contributor to a couple of other ASF projects. I don't speak for log4net. On 2010-04-29, Kirill Temnenkov wrote: > I think that the project be abandoned. Am I ri

Re: abandoned?

On 2010-05-03, Ron Grabowski wrote: > I agree with getting out a small point release before a large refactor. +1 You may even consider to change the major version with the refactoring, i.e. release a 1.1 compatible log4net 1.2.x soon and call the .NET 2.0+ version log4net 2.x Stefan

Re: abandoned?

On 2010-05-03, Dominik Psenner wrote: > But as long there are no breaking API changes needed to get log4net running > with .net4.0 I would not target it as a major release, but more or less a > 1.4.x. Ron talked about taking advantage of generics in the API which would be a breaking change. Oth

Re: [jira] Created: (LOG4NET-257) Visual Studio 2010 .NET 4.0 Application does not copy log4net lib to bin directory

On 2010-05-03, Ron Grabowski wrote: > I just read that nant has a new release candidate out that supports > .NET 4.0. Someone may want to try running that against the code base > as that's how the final releases are built. I ran the beta1 on NAnt 0.90 against log4net's build file in the root dir

Re: Compiling log4net with strong name and 3rd party dependencies (also is log4net in a cul-du-sac)

On 2011-08-09, Curt Arnold wrote: > For those who want to drive a release forward, I would suggest: > Create a bug report for the next release (check if there is already > one) JIRA already has 1.2.11 as release version and tons of issues assigned to it. 20 are still open 34 are already in the

Re: Compiling log4net with strong name and 3rd party dependencies (also is log4net in a cul-du-sac)

[cross-posted so people don't duplicate effort, rest should only happen on the dev list] On 2011-08-09, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On 2011-08-09, Curt Arnold wrote: >> For those who want to drive a release forward, I would suggest: >> Create a bug report for the next releas

Re: Compiling log4net with strong name and 3rd party dependencies (also is log4net in a cul-du-sac)

Hi Jim, On 2011-08-10, Jim Scott wrote: > On 8/8/2011 8:34 PM, Curt Arnold wrote: >> I'd be happy to perform the release build or reencrypt the strong >> signing key to another PMC member who wants to help. However, to get >> to that point, it will take people who are motivated to pitch in and >

Re: Compiling log4net with strong name and 3rd party dependencies (also is log4net in a cul-du-sac)

Hi Roy On 2011-08-10, Roy Chastain wrote: > I have volunteered my services before, but unfortunately, I don't know > how to use ANY of the tools required to interface with Jira and the > source control. Interfacing with JIRA really doesn't involve anything but a browser. I know there are some i

Re: Compiling log4net with strong name and 3rd party dependencies

On 2011-08-08, Johannes Gustafsson wrote: > There are a few bugfixes in the trunk that I need and since there has been > no new release for a very long time, I tried to compile it myself. I created > a key and have successfully compiled it with no problems. However, I have > quite a few 3rd party

Re: Compiling log4net with strong name and 3rd party dependencies

On 2011-08-11, Curt Arnold wrote: > On Aug 10, 2011, at 10:38 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> I'd propose to not keep the signing key of future releases secret but >> simply keep the full keypair inside the source tree. >> Stefan > I'm fine with that as long

Build/Release instructions?

Hi, I've checked out trunk and tried to build it and run tests using NAnt on both my $work Win7 machine and my private Linux box. I opened a few JIRA tickets on the way. Is there any document that I have missed on what I'm expected to have installed if I want to do a full build that would be nee

Re: Moving forward with updates, builds and versions

On 2011-08-12, Roy Chastain wrote: > I have finally gotten an environment allows me to get source etc. Great. Have you got an environemt where you can build the 1.x and compact framework assemblies (right now I don't)? SSCLI? > My questions are of the following types > 1) - Do we have a plan?

Re: Moving forward with updates, builds and versions

On 2011-08-12, Roy Chastain wrote: >> Have you got an environment where you can build the 1.x and compact >> framework assemblies (right now I don't)? > I could at one point a few years back, but probably not now. The same is true for my own environment. > I was referring more to just being abl

Re: Moving forward with updates, builds and versions

On 2011-08-12, Tasos Vogiatzoglou wrote: > I had submitted a patch about building log4net for 2010 (.NET 4 Client > profile and .NET 4) which also fixes an issue in the UdpAppender. > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4NET-296 There are a few indentation changes and the rest should be str

Re: Moving forward with updates, builds and versions

On 2011-08-12, Dominik Psenner wrote: > On 08/12/2011 07:19 PM, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> Short term we'll be slowed down by the fact that there are only very few >> people with write access to the source tree, of course. > Could the short term development be done

Re: Moving forward with updates, builds and versions

On 2011-08-12, Dominik Psenner wrote: > The operation could take some time. Once it is done, there should be 553 > changesets. The last would be: > changeset: 553:7f145743e63e > tag: tip > user:rgrabowski@13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68 > date:Wed Oct 13 03:26:57 20

Re: Moving forward with updates, builds and versions

On 2011-08-13, Dominik Psenner wrote: > On 08/12/2011 10:46 PM, Dominik Psenner wrote: >> I actually just cloned the apache svn and am currently pushing the >> changes to a bitbucket repository here: >> https://bitbucket.org/NachbarsLumpi/log4net > FWIW, I managed to apply some of the patches th

Re: Open issues for 1.2.10 release

On 2011-08-13, Dominik Psenner wrote: > There are 9 open issues targeted for 1.2.10. They should probably be > rescheduled to be included in 1.2.11? I'm not even sure whether some of them still are relevant. They certainly need to be rescheduled. My preference would be to have some release like

Re: Moving forward with updates, builds and versions

On 2011-08-13, Dominik Psenner wrote: > On 08/13/2011 06:34 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >>> For each of them we have to: >>> * see if the patches are not fixed already >>> * see if they fit into the current latest tip (trunk) >>> * revise if they includ

Re: Discussing the existing patches

On 2011-08-13, Dominik Psenner wrote: > Can we start a discussion on the existing patches? Absolutely. I'm running out of time right now, but will focus on the three issues you've mentioned soon. Stefan

Re: Moving forward with updates, builds and versions

On 2011-08-13, Roy Chastain wrote: >>> Who are those people? Maybe they should comment on this? > I am one of those people. At this point I have minimal (if any) > understanding of the actual patch insertion process, but given I don't > have write privileges that is okay. I also have minimal/no

Re: Moving forward with updates, builds and versions

On 2011-08-13, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > svn is pretty similar to TFS The version control part of TFS that is. There are differences but both have similar (limited) support for merge tracking, perform branching in the file-system space (i.e. copy a trunk dir to a branches/X_Y_Z dir) and both

Re: Moving forward with updates, builds and versions

On 2011-08-13, Roy Chastain wrote: > My immediate takeaway is that by using a distributed VCS we have the > capabilities that I am more used to in that we are working "connected" > instead of "disconnected" with the connection blocker being someone who > can commit in SVN on ASF. Yes, BUT. But o

Re: Moving forward with updates, builds and versions

On 2011-08-14, Dominik Psenner wrote: > sorry for the late response. This sunny sunday took me for a trip into > the mountains. :-) See the inlines below. I live further up north in Germany (guessing from your name) so it hasn't been as sunny around here 8-( >> The normal state of an ASF project

Re: Moving forward with updates, builds and versions

On 2011-08-15, Curt Arnold wrote: > Code development at the ASF should be done in the open and not in a > private branch that unveiled to the community (has happened in the > past) as that basically prevents anyone else from influencing the work > while in process. To be fair, this is not what Do

Re: Open issues for 1.2.10 release

On 2011-08-13, Dominik Psenner wrote: > There are 9 open issues targeted for 1.2.10. They should probably be > rescheduled to be included in 1.2.11? I've just been granted enough JIRA karma to at least re-assign those issues to 1.2.11 (but can't create new versions, yet). Without even reading th

Client Profiles (was Re: Open issues for 1.2.10 release)

On 2011-08-15, Dominik Psenner wrote: > The other big story is the support for the .NET client profiles. As I > understood it, we have to drop everything in log4net that is not > supported in a .NET 4.0 client profile (i.e. references to System.Web). > To achieve this we have at least two options:

Moving Forward

Hi all, it seems that so far we agree that the very next steps should be * release 1.2.11 ASAP. This should be current trunk plus all known good patches from JIRA that won't make it impossible to build for 1.0 or compact framework. I think it may be possible to provide client profile vers

Re: Client Profiles

On 2011-08-15, Dominik Psenner wrote: > On 08/15/2011 08:29 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> Right now the NAnt build builds several different assemblies targeting >> different platforms all out of the same source tree and it should be >> straight forward to extend that to the c

Re: Moving forward with updates, builds and versions

On 2011-08-15, Dominik Psenner wrote: > On 08/15/2011 07:26 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> I think it is important for us all, that we do have a single place with >> the code to discuss - and once we have enough people with write access >> it won't be necessary to think

Re: Client Profiles

On 2011-08-15, Dominik Psenner wrote: > On 08/15/2011 11:26 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> Like I said later, I'm not convinced we need to target 4.0 at all as the >> 2.0 version should just work. For client profile we could use a >> stripped down 2.0 version or exp

Re: Client Profiles

On 2011-08-15, Roy Chastain wrote: > A couple of issues > 1) - There is no client profile for 2.0. 3.5 is the first version with > a client profile. > 2) - There is more to building against client profiles than removing > namespaces. I understand both of those points. Let's assume we target 2.0

Re: Client Profiles

On 2011-08-15, Roy Chastain wrote: >>> What I wonder is: do we really need 3.5 and 4.0 assemblies at all? > Two comments > 1) - There seems to be a lot of confusion among developers about the > Frameworks. By reading the questions that have been asked on the list, > I believe that many of them d

Re: Moving forward with updates, builds and versions

On 2011-08-15, Dominik Psenner wrote: > On 08/15/2011 11:39 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> If we get back on track with regular releases the occasional trunk >> breakage will be OK as people won't be forced to use arbitrary trunk >> revisions. > No, it is not OK at all

Re: Client Profiles

On 2011-08-15, Roy Chastain wrote: > Let me start at some basics just to ensure that we are starting at the > same point. > There are 3 CLR versions, 1.x, 2.0, 4.0. Framework 3.0 and 3.5 are > simply add on assemblies that target the 2.0 runtime. This fact is why > the 3.5, 3.0 and 2.0 interop w

Re: Questions for our poll

On 2011-08-16, Roy Chastain wrote: > A starting point for the questions to be presented. Please modify and > add as you see fit. These are in no particular order. Looks good to me. > 6) - Do you need an assembly targeting any version of Silverlight? (if > enough say yes, we come back and ask

commits list

Hi all, I've just received commit access to log4net and already applied my own patches which don't address anyting major: * ensured line-ends are correct (this will create a huge diff for those with a checkout on platforms where the native line-end is not CRLF) I still may have missed some f

Re: Patch for LOG4NET-38 EventLogAppender: Add support for setting the Category on Event Log messages.

On 2011-08-17, Isaac Devine wrote: > Sorry I don't what your process is here, so I thought I would post to > the dev-list to please review my patch for issue 38 (url below): No real process right now, let's do what works. 8-) > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4NET-38 As this is in the

Re: .NET 4 branch

Hi Tasos, On 2011-08-10, Tasos Vogiatzoglou wrote: > Could anyone with write access make a .NET 4 (or 1.2.11 ?) branch in > the repos ? I have submitted some patches that would be helpfull to > have them included and I am working on the same line on the test > project. What exactly would you ne

Re: .NET 4 branch

On 2011-08-17, Tasos Vogiatzoglou wrote: > If there is a schedule for 1.2.11 I don't mind a branch after that. If > there is not a schedule for 1.2.11 or there are resource constraints I > could certainly help time to drive a good release. It depends on how much help we can get, but I'm confident

Re: .NET 4 branch

On 2011-08-17, Tasos Vogiatzoglou wrote: > Does ASF have a build server or something that can build, run tests > and produce binaries ? It has, but there is nothing set up for log4net right now. The most sane choice would be the Jenkins[1] installation as there already are other .NET projects us

New versions in JIRA

Hi, I've created new versions in JIRA eligible for "target version" that I'd like to use to classify issues. They are not meant to be real software versions; if and when we do releases after 1.2.11 we'd pick issues from there and re-assign them. * 1.2 maintentance for everything that could be

Planning 1.2.11

Hi all, this is how I think we could get to a 1.2.11 release in the timeframe of about a month: (1) look at all issues currently reported and assign them to 1.2.11 if (a) they describe a reproducible bug that we know how to fix (b) they wish for a feature that looks desirabl

Re: Planning 1.2.11

On 2011-08-17, Roy Chastain wrote: > I like it all with the possible exception of attempting to produce 4.0 > targeted assembly in the short term 1.2.11. I THINK that will delay the > process. If it does not, then fine - no problem. I hope it is mainly a matter of upgrading NAnt and mimicing wh

Re: Planning 1.2.11

On 2011-08-17, Tasos Vogiatzoglou wrote: > My jira act is oglu both you and Roy are now members of the contributors group. Stefan

Re: Planning 1.2.11

On 2011-08-18, Dominik Psenner wrote: >> this is how I think we could get to a 1.2.11 release in the timeframe of >> about a month > Looks fine, no objections. Good. I've managed to get NAnt 0.91apha2 working after some hassles, I hope to be able to build assemblies targeting 4.0 by tommorow.

NAnt 0.91alpha 2 (was Re: Planning 1.2.11)

On 2011-08-18, Dominik Psenner wrote: >> I've managed to get NAnt 0.91apha2 working after some hassles, I hope to >> be able to build assemblies targeting 4.0 by tommorow. > That's great news! I ran out of luck the last time I tried it, but I'm quite > unused to NAnt anyway. So that could have be

Some trunk builds to play with

Hi all, contains DLLs I've built from trunk targeting .NET 2.0, 3.5 and 4.0 respectively. Neither of them signed. The ZIP contains all DLLs/XMLs/PDBs. It would be nice if anybody apart from myself could confirm they look OK. Tasos, it would be good

ADO.NET Appender and FX 4.0

Hi, Roy said in some thread people had reported problems with the ADO.NET appender when running on .NET 4.0. I managed to get to the point where NAnt at least tries to run the unit tests on 4.0 and this is what I see: Unhandled Exception: System.TypeLoadException: Inheritance security rules vio

Re: ADO.NET Appender and FX 4.0

On 2011-08-19, Roy Chastain wrote: > While, this is certainly a problem, it SHOULD not be the issue already > reported, because those reports were against log4Net running on the 2.0 > CLR instead of the 4.0 CLR. OK. > I have done some research this morning, and have found a couple of > articles

Re: ADO.NET Appender and FX 4.0

On 2011-08-19, Roy Chastain wrote: > I have done some research this morning, and have found a couple of > articles suggesting "fixes", but I do not yet understand the > ramifications. This is all to do with a new code security model created > in 4.0 and it is going to take time to understand. >

Re: Client Profiles and Express Editions of Visual Studio

On 2011-08-19, Roy Chastain wrote: > I just found this statement > "In Express Editions of Visual Studio, a .NET Framework version or > profile cannot be specified when a project is created. However, you can > later retarget the project to any installed .NET Framework version." > At http://msdn.mi

State of Client Profile and .NET 4.0 Support

Hi all, I've hacked in client profile support - the NAnt build files are becoming a bigger mess of copy-paste with each change, but this is a different story. I've taken Tasos' approach and defined a CLIENT_PROFILE compilation symbol and conditionally excluded the ASP.NET stuff if it is present a

Re: ADO.NET Appender and FX 4.0

On 2011-08-20, Roy Chastain wrote: >> I should add that NAnt.exe.config contains >> >> and seems to need it. This may complicate things even further. > See this http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd409253.aspx Yes, I knew that, I should have elaborated more. > My gut says that thi

Compilation Symbols

Hi all, before I started to modifiy things for 4.0 and client profile the NAnt build was setting a compilation symbol for the "family" like "NET", "NETCF", "MONO" and one for the specific version "NET_1_1", "NET_2_0" and so on. Also the conditional compilation sections seem to not assume NET_2_0

Re: State of Client Profile and .NET 4.0 Support

Hi Ron, good to hear from you. On 2011-08-25, Ron Grabowski wrote: > Is your .NET 4 support just in the NAnt scripts? Yes, exclusively. > It's probably safe to replace the VS2008 solution file with a VS2010 > version. I didn't go that far because my VS insisted on converting the project files

Re: Compilation Symbols

On 2011-08-21, Roy Chastain wrote: > We must have "many" conditionals. As you noted 2.0 is not a superset of > 1.1 and 4.0 is not a superset of 2.0. Because of CAS and other issues, > 2.0 and 4.0 may be in direct opposition. Agreed. > 3.0 and 3.5 are indeed supersets of 2.0, but I doubt their im

Re: State of Client Profile and .NET 4.0 Support

On 2011-09-04, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On 2011-08-25, Ron Grabowski wrote: >> Is your .NET 4 support just in the NAnt scripts? > Yes, exclusively. >> It's probably safe to replace the VS2008 solution file with a VS2010 >> version. > I didn't go that far

New DEBUG Snapshots of trunk - with Client Profile

Hi, I've run VS 2010's static code analysis using the security rule set on the current code base and fixed all places where it complained about transparent code referencing security-critical code or code overriding security-critical methods. The result is a bit more than the SecurityCritical attr

First JIRA triage run complete

Hi all, as you have seen in the storm of JIRA emails I went through all JIRA issues and assigned them to some "fix version". Some of them looked invalid but I only closed the most obvious ones. After I now have read all of them, on piece of code is sticking out as a major pain point: RollingFile

Does MinimalLock actually work with AppendToFile = false?

Hi, while looking into the failing unit tests I started to wonder whether TestMinimalLockUnlocks in RollingFileAppenderTest has ever passed - and if it actually can. The test uses a RollingFileAppender with AppendToFile=false and a MinimalLock locking model. Since the MinimalLockingModel re-open

Re: Does MinimalLock actually work with AppendToFile = false?

On 2011-09-06, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > while looking into the failing unit tests I started to wonder whether > TestMinimalLockUnlocks in RollingFileAppenderTest has ever passed - and > if it actually can. I should have looked through svn history first. svn revision 607475 which add

Re: First JIRA triage run complete

On 2011-09-06, Roy Chastain wrote: > I will take on RFA. I have had my issues with it and even added a > different rolling method for my local use. Great. I'll likely modify the test case to add tests for the MutexLock (I suspect it doesn't work as advertized). The resulting fixes won't touch

mvn based log4net website

Hi all, based in major parts on work done by Curt earlier and inspired by log4php I've created a mvn site-plugin based version of the log4net site. The current result can be seen here and it should be very similar to the existing site. The major

Re: mvn based log4net website

On 2011-09-07, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > looked at it - great job Stefan. Curt had already done most of the conversion from the Anakia based site. > There is only thing I found so quick - look at the logo top left you have > used. > You could replace it with the logo here: > http://logging.a

Distribution Formats

Hi all, 1.2.10 is distributed as a single ZIP with source and binaries for all supported platforms. "Normal" ASF procedure is to have separate downloads for source-only and binary-plus-doc releases and to provide ZIPs as well as tar.gz tarballs. How do we want to package 1.2.11? I personally wo

Forth digit in version number

Hi, I don't expect us to release betas or any other kind of two releases that would only differ in the forth digit of the version number. So we could simply set it to 0 (which I think currently happens in trunk, didn't check). Right now I'm afraid I won't be able to build all binaries on the sam

Re: Forth digit in version number

On 2011-09-08, Michael Schall wrote: > We set the forth digit to 0 for the AssemblyVersion attribute and SVN > revision number for the AssemblyFileVersion attribute. This way you can > slipstream fixes without breaking compatibility with other's code, but you > still have the revision number if y

Re: Forth digit in version number

On 2011-09-08, Michael Schall wrote: >> Interesting. How do you integrate this with your build process? > I can give you specifics if you want, but we use MSBuild and MSBuild > Community Tasks (http://msbuildtasks.tigris.org/)... > We have a target that uses the SvnInfo task to find the Subersi

Re: Forth digit in version number

On 2011-09-08, Dominik Guder wrote: > using nant for retreiving svn revision to property svn.revision: > use svn log (repository access) >output="_svnrevision.xml" failonerror="true" > > > > > > > xpath="/log/logentry/@revision" > property="svn.revision

Re: Distribution Formats

On 2011-09-09, Ron Grabowski wrote: > New key? I think I Nicko sent me the current assembly keya long time > ago. People always complain when keys change Search a while back through your mail backlog (about a month). There is consensus to move to a new key that is deliberately not kept secret so

What to do with EventLogAppender on Vista and newer?

Hi, as stated in LOG4NET-310 EventLogAppender runs into a SecurityException on Vista and newer if the event source doesn't exist. ActivateOptions tries to see whether the source exists and create it if it doesn't. Starting with Vista even looking for a source that doesn't exist will throw a Secu

Re: First JIRA triage run complete - RFA issues

On 2011-09-11, Roy Chastain wrote: > I picked up Visual NUnit for VS 2010. Once I installed it and ran the > tests under it, none of the RFA tests failed. The plugin indicates that > 5 are them are "not implemented" and indeed they are not. Great. Six of them fail on my Linux box - likely beca

Re: What to do with EventLogAppender on Vista and newer?

On 2011-09-11, Roy Chastain wrote: >> (1) document that you need to create your event sources outside of >> your application (usually during deployment) and (2) deal with the >> SecurityException in a more graceful way (log something and disable >> the appender, likely). > +1 for each 1 and 2 OK

Re: The state of RollingFileAppender

On 2011-09-12, Roy Chastain wrote: > When I looked at this code a few years ago, I thought it was overly > complicated and obtuse. Since spending the day with it today, and > discovering the invalid assumption, I stand by my original opinion. I was afraid you'd say that when you volunteered to l

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >