Re: Log4net 2.0

Hi, I heard you need some helping hands. I would be happy to volunteer! Sebastian

Re: Log4net 2.0

I do not, I simply emailed him via the NuGet package page for log4net. I will forward to you off list. > On Aug 26, 2015, at 11:45 AM, Dominik Psenner wrote: > > > On 26 Aug 2015 6:05 pm, "Jeremiah Gowdy" > wrote: > > > > Following up on this, I contacted the packa

RE: Log4net 2.0

ybe we will need something like that, too? I.e. a log4net2 namespace and a legacy log4net namespace that wires transparently to the new api in log4net2. > -- > Walden H Leverich III > (516) 627-3800 x3051 > wald...@techsoftinc.com > > > > From: jerem...@gowdy.me [mailto:jerem...@gow

Re: Log4net 2.0

On 26 Aug 2015 6:05 pm, "Jeremiah Gowdy" wrote: > > Following up on this, I contacted the package maintainer and they said they are willing to transfer ownership to the log4net project. Thats great news. Do you happen to know him in person? > >> On Aug 26, 2015, at 8:15 AM, jerem...@gowdy.me wro

Re: Log4net 2.0

Following up on this, I contacted the package maintainer and they said they are willing to transfer ownership to the log4net project. > On Aug 26, 2015, at 8:15 AM, jerem...@gowdy.me wrote: > > If we can't force the owner of the nuget log4net package to work with us, why > not package it as log

RE: Log4net 2.0

o:wald...@techsoftinc.com> From: jerem...@gowdy.me [mailto:jerem...@gowdy.me] Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 10:50 AM To: Log4NET Dev Subject: Re: Log4net 2.0 I would throw out there that the syslog appender is also a very useful appender for mixed shops. A couple things though. I don't s

Re: Log4net 2.0

If we can't force the owner of the nuget log4net package to work with us, why not package it as log4net official or apache-log4net. I don't get why packaging is off topic for the release of a .NET library. If we are seeking to increase the user base, I would think an official package in the pa

Re: Log4net 2.0

Hi again, I wanted this discussion to stay open for a week and that time is over now. For now I'll try to answer questions and clarify a few things so that you get another chance to raise your voice. > Will the code be compatible with the current version? The API should stay more or less the sam

Re: Log4net 2.0

On 2015-08-19, wrote: > Last night I've dreamed a dream and in that dream the release process of > log4net happened on a flick of a switch. A wonderful dream. Personally I'd like to emphasize > [1] To make this come true there will be the need for a few helping hands > and therefore this messa

Re: Log4net 2.0

I would throw out there that the syslog appender is also a very useful appender for mixed shops. A couple things though. I don't see any need to break any appenders that work fine. I'm not sure what the current appender skeleton interface lacks that we'd want to make breaking changes for. I w

Re: Log4net 2.0

I'd be willing to lend a hand. Some ideas: * Just be bold and embrace .NET 4.5, CoreCLR and the current version of Mono (must build on Centos7 with the official mono yum repo). Anyone with an XP requirement will either stick to the old log4net for now, or we've already lost them to NLog or whateve

Re: Log4net 2.0

Agree. Will the code be compatible with the current version? On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Miroslav Vanický wrote: > Logging to MSSQL would be nice! > > > On 19.8.2015 12:56, Javier Sanchez wrote: > > Agree! > El ago. 19, 2015 3:21 AM, escribió: > >> Hi, >> >> >> >> Last night I’ve dreamed

Re: Log4net 2.0

Logging to MSSQL would be nice! On 19.8.2015 12:56, Javier Sanchez wrote: Agree! El ago. 19, 2015 3:21 AM, > escribió: Hi, Last night I’ve dreamed a dream and in that dream the release process of log4net happened on a flick of a switch. Now that I’m

Re: Log4net 2.0

Agree! El ago. 19, 2015 3:21 AM, escribió: > Hi, > > > > Last night I’ve dreamed a dream and in that dream the release process of > log4net happened on a flick of a switch. Now that I’m awake again I find > the idea most pleasing and thus I’m bringing this idea to the dev list [1]. > > > > My ide