Guten Tag Stephen Webb,
am Montag, 30. März 2020 um 08:47 schrieben Sie:
> I see no question at that link, only the commit diff.
Please try again and have a look at the far right in the dot-menu, at
the same line like the file name. There's an option to show comments
or not, which might be
I see no question at that link, only the commit diff.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 5:36 PM Thorsten Schöning
wrote:
> Guten Tag Stephen Webb,
> am Montag, 30. März 2020 um 04:19 schrieben Sie:
>
> > My PR#21 (https://github.com/apache/logging-log4cxx/pull/21) remains
> > un-reviewed.
>
> It's not, I
Guten Tag Stephen Webb,
am Montag, 30. März 2020 um 04:19 schrieben Sie:
> My PR#21 (https://github.com/apache/logging-log4cxx/pull/21) remains
> un-reviewed.
It's not, I already asked questions weeks ago:
At least one log4cxx user has been using my fork of log4cxx (which includes
PR#21) to build on Windows (see
https://github.com/microsoft/vcpkg/issues/6125)
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 2:35 PM Ralph Goers
wrote:
> I’d be happy to merge it if someone involved with the project (even a
>
I’d be happy to merge it if someone involved with the project (even a
non-committer) can look at it. I don’t normally work on Windows so trying to
run a build with it is a bit more than I would like to do.
Ralph
> On Mar 29, 2020, at 7:19 PM, Stephen Webb wrote:
>
> Is there anyway I can to
Is there anyway I can to help move this forward (I do not have an Apache
account)?
My PR#21 (https://github.com/apache/logging-log4cxx/pull/21) remains
un-reviewed.
I have created a migration tool
https://github.com/stephen-webb/log4cxx_10_to_11 for anyone who has the
same migration issues as I.
On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 04:51:28PM +1100, Stephen Webb wrote:
> I would be surprised if any unix distribution would change to 0.11 log4cxx
> if its API is incompatible with 0.10.
With my Debian maintainer hat on:
This is nothing special and day to day businesss with distos:
It will "just"
Guten Tag Stephen Webb,
am Dienstag, 3. März 2020 um 06:51 schrieben Sie:
> As a result of knowing the macros are "blocks", most LOG4CXX_ XXX() code
> does not have a trailing semicolon.
And that has been unexpacted behaviour in the past and users did
wrong, so has been changed. The current
I can describe the concrete problem I will have with LOGCXX-319 given that
all the code for which I am responsible has been written using log4cxx 0.10
In 0.10, you have to know the macros are "blocks" not "statements" as any
conditional logging macro has to be written without a trailing
It may be helpful to document breaking changes in a clear manner.
While the version number may imply instability, the fact that it's
been released by a super longtime PMC already brings up the logistical
issues of backward compatibility and how one wishes to define that.
On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at
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
There is a difference between a user’s compile failing vs the build having
changed. Given how old log4cxx is I would expect it to be used in a fair
number of places despite its version number. I haven’t looked at the code
myself but is there no way to keep it backward compatible while also
Guten Tag Stephen Webb,
am Montag, 2. März 2020 um 12:45 schrieben Sie:
> The issue is it has changed to core log4cxx api so that existing 0.10 code
> may not compile.
> The macros are the core log4cxx api.
AFAIK there are no commitments to a stable API anyway, the version
number itself doesn't
The issue is it has changed to core log4cxx api so that existing 0.10 code
may not compile.
The macros are the core log4cxx api.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 9:32 PM Thorsten Schöning
wrote:
> Guten Tag Stephen Webb,
> am Montag, 2. März 2020 um 11:05 schrieben Sie:
>
> > In my review I did encounter
Guten Tag Stephen Webb,
am Montag, 2. März 2020 um 11:05 schrieben Sie:
> In my review I did encounter an item of concern to me. I see that 0.11
> cannot be used in place of 0.10 due to LOG4CXX-319. I personally am
> responsible for hundreds of thousands of lines of code that will not work
> with
I have not changed anything. Just used 'mvn post-site'.
It is simply an attempt to see if there is anyone interested in log4cxx.
In my review I did encounter an item of concern to me. I see that 0.11
cannot be used in place of 0.10 due to LOG4CXX-319. I personally am
responsible for hundreds of
Guten Tag Stephen Webb,
am Sonntag, 1. März 2020 um 07:19 schrieben Sie:
> I have posted the result of "mvn post-site" to
> https://stephen-webb.github.io/
Looks the same like what is published already to me:
https://logging.apache.org/log4cxx/next_stable/index.html
Shouldn't it be more of
I have posted the result of "mvn post-site" to
https://stephen-webb.github.io/
Please review.
18 matches
Mail list logo
