Sorry about that.
I've been slow scanning through my emails.
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: "Dominik Psenner"
Verzonden: 6/02/2014 8:07
Aan: "'Log4NET Dev'"
Onderwerp: AW: Thoughts on 1.3
That's exactly what I had pointed out in the original th
@logging.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Thoughts on 1.3
Hi Gert
On 2014.02.05 22:14, gert.drie...@telenet.be <mailto: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://msd
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"
That's exactly what I had pointed out in the original thread. :-)
>-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
>Von: gert.drie...@telenet.be [mailto:gert.drie...@telenet.be]
>Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. Februar 2014 22:15
>An: Log4NET Dev
>Betreff: Re: Thoughts on 1.3
>
>Hey Miljenko,
richt -
Van: "Miljenko Cvjetko"
Aan: "Log4NET Dev"
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
&g
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 fu
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 d
nko Cvjetko"
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 holid
On 2014-02-03, Miljenko Cvjetko wrote:
> So I would suggest You to do as Stefan suggested:
> 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
e.org
Betreff: 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 have a bit easier, so
I'd like to add few thoughts.
My name
.
Regards
Wojciech Dec
Od: "Miljenko Cvjetko"
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 ac
Montag, 3. Februar 2014 15:46
>An: log4net-dev@logging.apache.org
>Betreff: 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
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 have a bit easier, so
I’d like to add few thoughts.
My name is Miljenko Cvjetko and I'm the one
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 hol
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
Why not just apply semver and make it v2?
-- Ramon
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Dominik Psenner 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 Framewor
>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
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
>* 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
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
I.
20 matches
Mail list logo
