On 2013-11-05, Dominik Psenner wrote:
Having a general FRAMEWORK_X_Y define wouldn't be bad. But maybe
every
FRAMEWORK_X_Y should read as FRAMEWORK_X_Y_OR_ABOVE since
every framework
is compatible to its ancestors.
fine with me, I'll make the adjustments.
Awesome.
not yet done, but will
.
Opinions?
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bode...@apache.org]
Gesendet: Montag, 4. November 2013 06:31
An: log4net-dev@logging.apache.org
Betreff: Changed some defines
Hi all,
I have removed all defines that correspond to frameworks trunk no longer
builds and also
On 2013-11-04, Dominik Psenner wrote:
Having a general FRAMEWORK_X_Y define wouldn't be bad. But maybe every
FRAMEWORK_X_Y should read as FRAMEWORK_X_Y_OR_ABOVE since every framework
is compatible to its ancestors.
fine with me, I'll make the adjustments.
Still I would keep these defines:
Having a general FRAMEWORK_X_Y define wouldn't be bad. But maybe
every
FRAMEWORK_X_Y should read as FRAMEWORK_X_Y_OR_ABOVE since
every framework
is compatible to its ancestors.
fine with me, I'll make the adjustments.
Awesome.
Still I would keep these defines:
* MONO := set when build for
Hi all,
I have removed all defines that correspond to frameworks trunk no longer
builds and also dropped the *_2_0 symbols as they are the default now -
on that way I've removed a few chunks of 1.x specific code.
For the Compact Framework 2.0 build I'll ask Dustin Jones, the reporter
of
