I’ll defer the justification to those who were interested in the idea. I also
lean toward 3.x, but I’ve already prepared most of the code necessary to back
port this already. Otherwise, I’d also emphasize working on 3.0.0.
—
Matt Sicker
> On Apr 16, 2022, at 18:14, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> I
I was ok w it either way but I do understand Ralph's POV. So maybe leave
2.x alone in this department, unless there is an issue this would solve
that I missed.
Gary
On Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 18:04 Ralph Goers wrote:
> The question isn’t can it be. The question is, should it be. At this point
> I
The question isn’t can it be. The question is, should it be. At this point I
don’t see why it should. It is necessary in 3.0 to accomplish some of the
things we want to do there. But at this point I don’t think we should be doing
major things to 2.x.
Ralph
> On Apr 16, 2022, at 11:31 PM, Matt
Features only available in DI have been asked about in a couple different
situations already in 2.x development. I don’t plan on porting _all_ the
changes I made in 3.x (such as the various startup optimizations, removal of
deprecated code, and making all the existing system property based
A) Why?
B) I am not really a fan of this. I’d prefer to leave this major of a change
for 3.0 unless there is a very compelling reason to do it sooner. I’d prefer to
focus on getting 3.0 out sooner.
Ralph
> On Apr 16, 2022, at 7:14 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
>
> Hey all, I’m considering porting
Hey all, I’m considering porting the new DI system back to 2.x (but put all in
core as there’s no plugins module there) as there seems to be interest in using
this earlier than in 3.0. While I’d be willing to do this, I wanted to see what
anyone else thinks about the idea. I’d likely begin on a
Guten Tag Robert Middleton,
am Samstag, 16. April 2022 um 03:00 schrieben Sie:
> This is a vote to release log4cxx 0.13.0.
+1
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Thorsten Schöning
--
AM-SoFT IT-Service - Bitstore Hameln GmbH
Mitglied der Bitstore Gruppe - Ihr Full-Service-Dienstleister für IT und TK
Somehow I replied on the wrong thread.
I was OK with requiring PRs that I could self approve. I was not OK with
requiring every PR require multiple approvals.
Ralph
> On Apr 15, 2022, at 3:24 PM, Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
>
> I couldn't introduce branch protection (aka. RTC review-then-commit)
