Hi Gert
On 2014.02.05 22:14, gert.drie...@telenet.be wrote:
Hey Miljenko,
I don't think it makes sense to create a separate client-profile version.
MS has already abandoned this:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc656912(v=vs.110).aspx
I'm aware of that. Maybe the term client-profile
Sorry about that.
I've been slow scanning through my emails.
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Dominik Psenner dpsen...@apache.org
Verzonden: 6/02/2014 8:07
Aan: 'Log4NET Dev' log4net-dev@logging.apache.org
Onderwerp: AW: Thoughts on 1.3
That's exactly what I had pointed out
: Miljenko Cvjetko mcvje...@holisticware.net
Aan: Log4NET Dev log4net-dev@logging.apache.org
Verzonden: Dinsdag 4 februari 2014 14:44:00
Onderwerp: Re: Thoughts on 1.3
Hi
On 2014.02.04 13:24, w...@poczta.fm wrote:
Hi
If You work on port of log4net to Xamarin You may find helpful the patch
...@holisticware.net
Do: log4net-dev@logging.apache.org;
Wysłane: 15:47 Poniedziałek 2014-02-03
Temat: Thoughts on 1.3
Hi
I have tried to post this one through the nabble on Nov 25th and 26th.
My post are still there as not accepted. Then I got dragged away with
projects, then holidays and again projects. Now I
Hi
1. to split log4net-13.dll so that the main assembly can be used for
the client profile and a separate assembly contains the stuff that
requires System.Web - this way we no longer need the -cp builds.
Dominik convinced me there was no future for the client profiles anyway,
but back then I
On 2014-02-04, Miljenko Cvjetko wrote:
Hi
1. to split log4net-13.dll so that the main assembly can be used for
the client profile and a separate assembly contains the stuff that
requires System.Web - this way we no longer need the -cp builds.
Dominik convinced me there was no future for the
Sorry for formatting. Pasted it directly from google docs into
thunderbird and here it looked OK.
sorry one more time
mel
On 2014.02.03 15:32, Miljenko Cvjetko wrote:
*
Hi
I have tried to post this one through the nabble on Nov 25th and 26th.
The I got dragged away with projects, then
On 2013-10-25, Dominik Psenner wrote:
* the next release will be 1.3.0 and require .NET 2.0 or better
I.e. we remove support for .NET 1.0 and 1.1, Compact Framework 1.0,
Mono 2.0, SSCLI and CLI 1.0 frameworks
That's even worth a +2! ;-)
* the main assembly will get a new name like
Why not just apply semver and make it v2?
-- Ramon
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Dominik Psenner dpsen...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2013-10-25, Dominik Psenner wrote:
* the next release will be 1.3.0 and require .NET 2.0 or better
I.e. we remove support for .NET 1.0 and 1.1, Compact
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4net-dev/201310.mbox/%3C
CADVsjzOOzbBHOcKXRhqO-buGn5uEvurLy0WfykxqRMmtyPwvFw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
Von: Ramon Smits [mailto:ramon.sm...@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Montag, 28. Oktober 2013 12:04
An: Log4NET Dev
Betreff: Re: Thoughts on 1.3
Why
On 2013-10-25, Dominik Psenner wrote:
* the next release will be 1.3.0 and require .NET 2.0 or better
I.e. we remove support for .NET 1.0 and 1.1, Compact Framework 1.0,
Mono 2.0, SSCLI and CLI 1.0 frameworks
That's even worth a +2! ;-)
* the main assembly will get a new name like
* the next release will be 1.3.0 and require .NET 2.0 or better
I.e. we remove support for .NET 1.0 and 1.1, Compact Framework 1.0,
Mono 2.0, SSCLI and CLI 1.0 frameworks
That's even worth a +2! ;-)
* the main assembly will get a new name like log4net-13.dll, only be
signed by the new
Hi all,
this is just a random list, I'd like to make sure whether we are on the
same page before making changes or just give the user list a heads up.
My understanding of the discussion which basically happened in JIRA so
far:
* the next release will be 1.3.0 and require .NET 2.0 or better
13 matches
Mail list logo
