Re: Towards 2.0.6
On 2016-11-07, Dominik Psenner wrote: > LOG4NET-487 is about the configuration option and the issue I would > like to see in the release. The reason is, not having this > configurable costs performance and creating a mutex always is > troublesome to some configurations. The latter resulted in > LOG4NET-506. Obviously I haven't managed to invest the time needed to fix it. The main blocker for myself has been that I may be able to write something that compiles and doesn't break the existing tests, but I don't think that's enough for introducing a feature like this shortly before cutting a release. And I really don't know how to properly test the variations needed. Having said that, I'll update the site sources in svn for a release candidate and unless anybody yells will tag and build an RC and call for a vote the coming days. Stefan
Re: Towards 2.0.6
On 2016-11-09 10:11, Stefan Bodewig wrote: On 2016-11-07, Dominik Psenner wrote: LOG4NET-487 is about the configuration option and the issue I would like to see in the release. The reason is, not having this configurable costs performance and creating a mutex always is troublesome to some configurations. I should be able to carve out some time the coming days and will look into LOG4NET-487 unless anybody beats me to it. Would you be OK with me calling a release vote after that? It is something I would like to see in 2.0.6, which doesn't imply that it must be part of 2.0.6. I'm going to vote for 2.0.6 even if LOG4NET-487 is not part of it, so long 2.0.6 passes my checks. Cheers
Re: Towards 2.0.6
On 2016-11-07, Dominik Psenner wrote: > LOG4NET-487 is about the configuration option and the issue I would > like to see in the release. The reason is, not having this > configurable costs performance and creating a mutex always is > troublesome to some configurations. I should be able to carve out some time the coming days and will look into LOG4NET-487 unless anybody beats me to it. Would you be OK with me calling a release vote after that? Stefan
Re: Towards 2.0.6
So this would be something you'd like to see adressed before the release, right? I think this is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4NET-485 which is linked by https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4NET-506 - only the later is still open. And there is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4NET-487 LOG4NET-485 is resolved with fix version 1.2.14 and the correspondig commit (svn revision 1711838) really is part of 1.2.14. https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/logging/log4net/tags/1.2.14/src/Appender/RollingFileAppender.cs?r1=1707180=1711838 Stefan On 2016-11-06, Dominik Psenner wrote: > We had introduced a mutex to secure rolling operations in the rolling file > appender. It would be nice if we could make the rolling locking > configurable (none, lock, mutex), defaulting to none. There should be an > issue for that, too. > On 6 Nov 2016 2:19 p.m., "Joe" <jocular...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I just had a quick look through the commits since 1.2.15 and I don't see > anything that looks particularly risky. > I'd vote for cutting an RC. > -Original Message- > From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bode...@apache.org] > Sent: 06 November 2016 11:14 > To: log4net-dev@logging.apache.org > Subject: Towards 2.0.6 > Hi all > I'd like to get 2.0.6 released in order to help out people who want to use > log4net with .NET Core. > We've had some changes since I built the last test assemblies, but AFAIK > nobody has given them a try anyway. I wonder whether creating test > assemblies is worth the effort or whether I should simply proceed with > cutting a release candidate and call for a vote. > So what do you think, should I just cut an RC? Is there anything floating > around that should go into 2.0.6? > Stefan
RE: Towards 2.0.6
We had introduced a mutex to secure rolling operations in the rolling file appender. It would be nice if we could make the rolling locking configurable (none, lock, mutex), defaulting to none. There should be an issue for that, too. On 6 Nov 2016 2:19 p.m., "Joe" <jocular...@hotmail.com> wrote: I just had a quick look through the commits since 1.2.15 and I don't see anything that looks particularly risky. I'd vote for cutting an RC. -Original Message- From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bode...@apache.org] Sent: 06 November 2016 11:14 To: log4net-dev@logging.apache.org Subject: Towards 2.0.6 Hi all I'd like to get 2.0.6 released in order to help out people who want to use log4net with .NET Core. We've had some changes since I built the last test assemblies, but AFAIK nobody has given them a try anyway. I wonder whether creating test assemblies is worth the effort or whether I should simply proceed with cutting a release candidate and call for a vote. So what do you think, should I just cut an RC? Is there anything floating around that should go into 2.0.6? Stefan
RE: Towards 2.0.6
I just had a quick look through the commits since 1.2.15 and I don't see anything that looks particularly risky. I'd vote for cutting an RC. -Original Message- From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bode...@apache.org] Sent: 06 November 2016 11:14 To: log4net-dev@logging.apache.org Subject: Towards 2.0.6 Hi all I'd like to get 2.0.6 released in order to help out people who want to use log4net with .NET Core. We've had some changes since I built the last test assemblies, but AFAIK nobody has given them a try anyway. I wonder whether creating test assemblies is worth the effort or whether I should simply proceed with cutting a release candidate and call for a vote. So what do you think, should I just cut an RC? Is there anything floating around that should go into 2.0.6? Stefan
