On Wed, 11 May 2005, Nicko Cadell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use cygwin cvs which is configured to work in UNIX mode on my
WinXP box. This is not really by design, its just the way it is
right now.
I don't want to make an issue of this, but I'm curious. Why are you
using the UNIX mode
On Thu, 12 May 2005, Nicko Cadell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I haven't played around with subversion too much and I don't know
how it deals with the LF / CRLF issue, I guess we will find out ;)
Unlike CVS, Subversion treats all files as binary files - and doesn't
do any keyword expansion either
I've been a lurker on the log4net lists for a while now, so even if my
vote isn't binding, I still want to express a strong +1.
Stefan
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, Nicko Cadell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Logging PMC has voted in favour of adding Ron as a committer on
log4net.
Congrats!
Stefan
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Gert Driesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone happen to know if an upgrade of Mono or NAnt was done prior
to this failure?
We should be building against a hand-installed Mono 1.2.4, but I see
there also is a system installed mono 1.2.3 on vmgump. I don't recall
installing
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Stefan Bodewig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Gert Driesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone happen to know if an upgrade of Mono or NAnt was done prior
to this failure?
We should be building against a hand-installed Mono 1.2.4, but I see
there also
On 2010-05-03, Ron Grabowski rongrabow...@yahoo.com wrote:
I agree with getting out a small point release before a large refactor.
+1
You may even consider to change the major version with the refactoring,
i.e. release a 1.1 compatible log4net 1.2.x soon and call the .NET 2.0+
version log4net
On 2011-08-09, Curt Arnold wrote:
For those who want to drive a release forward, I would suggest:
Create a bug report for the next release (check if there is already
one)
JIRA already has 1.2.11 as release version and tons of issues assigned
to it. 20 are still open 34 are already in the
Hi Jim,
On 2011-08-10, Jim Scott wrote:
On 8/8/2011 8:34 PM, Curt Arnold wrote:
I'd be happy to perform the release build or reencrypt the strong
signing key to another PMC member who wants to help. However, to get
to that point, it will take people who are motivated to pitch in and
get
Hi Roy
On 2011-08-10, Roy Chastain wrote:
I have volunteered my services before, but unfortunately, I don't know
how to use ANY of the tools required to interface with Jira and the
source control.
Interfacing with JIRA really doesn't involve anything but a browser. I
know there are some
On 2011-08-08, Johannes Gustafsson wrote:
There are a few bugfixes in the trunk that I need and since there has been
no new release for a very long time, I tried to compile it myself. I created
a key and have successfully compiled it with no problems. However, I have
quite a few 3rd party
On 2011-08-11, Curt Arnold wrote:
On Aug 10, 2011, at 10:38 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
I'd propose to not keep the signing key of future releases secret but
simply keep the full keypair inside the source tree.
Stefan
I'm fine with that as long as it is a different key than that which
On 2011-08-12, Roy Chastain wrote:
I have finally gotten an environment allows me to get source etc.
Great.
Have you got an environemt where you can build the 1.x and compact
framework assemblies (right now I don't)? SSCLI?
My questions are of the following types
1) - Do we have a plan?
On 2011-08-12, Roy Chastain wrote:
Have you got an environment where you can build the 1.x and compact
framework assemblies (right now I don't)?
I could at one point a few years back, but probably not now.
The same is true for my own environment.
I was referring more to just being able to
On 2011-08-12, Tasos Vogiatzoglou wrote:
I had submitted a patch about building log4net for 2010 (.NET 4 Client
profile and .NET 4) which also fixes an issue in the UdpAppender.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4NET-296
There are a few indentation changes and the rest should be
On 2011-08-12, Dominik Psenner wrote:
On 08/12/2011 07:19 PM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
Short term we'll be slowed down by the fact that there are only very few
people with write access to the source tree, of course.
Could the short term development be done in a remote repository,
likewise hg
On 2011-08-12, Dominik Psenner wrote:
The operation could take some time. Once it is done, there should be 553
changesets. The last would be:
changeset: 553:7f145743e63e
tag: tip
user:rgrabowski@13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68
date:Wed Oct 13 03:26:57 2010
On 2011-08-13, Dominik Psenner wrote:
On 08/12/2011 10:46 PM, Dominik Psenner wrote:
I actually just cloned the apache svn and am currently pushing the
changes to a bitbucket repository here:
https://bitbucket.org/NachbarsLumpi/log4net
FWIW, I managed to apply some of the patches that were
On 2011-08-13, Dominik Psenner wrote:
There are 9 open issues targeted for 1.2.10. They should probably be
rescheduled to be included in 1.2.11?
I'm not even sure whether some of them still are relevant. They
certainly need to be rescheduled.
My preference would be to have some release like
On 2011-08-13, Dominik Psenner wrote:
On 08/13/2011 06:34 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
For each of them we have to:
* see if the patches are not fixed already
* see if they fit into the current latest tip (trunk)
* revise if they include sane changes
* determine if they should be included
On 2011-08-13, Dominik Psenner wrote:
Can we start a discussion on the existing patches?
Absolutely. I'm running out of time right now, but will focus on the
three issues you've mentioned soon.
Stefan
On 2011-08-13, Roy Chastain wrote:
Who are those people? Maybe they should comment on this?
I am one of those people. At this point I have minimal (if any)
understanding of the actual patch insertion process, but given I don't
have write privileges that is okay. I also have minimal/no
On 2011-08-13, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
svn is pretty similar to TFS
The version control part of TFS that is.
There are differences but both have similar (limited) support for merge
tracking, perform branching in the file-system space (i.e. copy a trunk
dir to a branches/X_Y_Z dir) and both
On 2011-08-13, Roy Chastain wrote:
My immediate takeaway is that by using a distributed VCS we have the
capabilities that I am more used to in that we are working connected
instead of disconnected with the connection blocker being someone who
can commit in SVN on ASF.
Yes, BUT.
But once the
On 2011-08-14, Dominik Psenner wrote:
sorry for the late response. This sunny sunday took me for a trip into
the mountains. :-) See the inlines below.
I live further up north in Germany (guessing from your name) so it
hasn't been as sunny around here 8-(
The normal state of an ASF project is
On 2011-08-13, Dominik Psenner wrote:
There are 9 open issues targeted for 1.2.10. They should probably be
rescheduled to be included in 1.2.11?
I've just been granted enough JIRA karma to at least re-assign those
issues to 1.2.11 (but can't create new versions, yet).
Without even reading the
On 2011-08-15, Dominik Psenner wrote:
The other big story is the support for the .NET client profiles. As I
understood it, we have to drop everything in log4net that is not
supported in a .NET 4.0 client profile (i.e. references to System.Web).
To achieve this we have at least two options:
Hi all,
it seems that so far we agree that the very next steps should be
* release 1.2.11 ASAP.
This should be current trunk plus all known good patches from JIRA that
won't make it impossible to build for 1.0 or compact framework.
I think it may be possible to provide client profile
On 2011-08-15, Dominik Psenner wrote:
On 08/15/2011 08:29 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
Right now the NAnt build builds several different assemblies targeting
different platforms all out of the same source tree and it should be
straight forward to extend that to the client profile as well
On 2011-08-15, Dominik Psenner wrote:
On 08/15/2011 07:26 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
I think it is important for us all, that we do have a single place with
the code to discuss - and once we have enough people with write access
it won't be necessary to think about any other place than svn
On 2011-08-15, Dominik Psenner wrote:
On 08/15/2011 11:26 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
Like I said later, I'm not convinced we need to target 4.0 at all as the
2.0 version should just work. For client profile we could use a
stripped down 2.0 version or explicitly target 3.5 (client profile
On 2011-08-15, Roy Chastain wrote:
A couple of issues
1) - There is no client profile for 2.0. 3.5 is the first version with
a client profile.
2) - There is more to building against client profiles than removing
namespaces.
I understand both of those points.
Let's assume we target 2.0 and
On 2011-08-15, Roy Chastain wrote:
What I wonder is: do we really need 3.5 and 4.0 assemblies at all?
Two comments
1) - There seems to be a lot of confusion among developers about the
Frameworks. By reading the questions that have been asked on the list,
I believe that many of them do not
On 2011-08-15, Dominik Psenner wrote:
On 08/15/2011 11:39 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
If we get back on track with regular releases the occasional trunk
breakage will be OK as people won't be forced to use arbitrary trunk
revisions.
No, it is not OK at all. IMHO every recorded history should
On 2011-08-15, Roy Chastain wrote:
Let me start at some basics just to ensure that we are starting at the
same point.
There are 3 CLR versions, 1.x, 2.0, 4.0. Framework 3.0 and 3.5 are
simply add on assemblies that target the 2.0 runtime. This fact is why
the 3.5, 3.0 and 2.0 interop works
On 2011-08-16, Roy Chastain wrote:
A starting point for the questions to be presented. Please modify and
add as you see fit. These are in no particular order.
Looks good to me.
6) - Do you need an assembly targeting any version of Silverlight? (if
enough say yes, we come back and ask
On 2011-08-17, Tasos Vogiatzoglou wrote:
If there is a schedule for 1.2.11 I don't mind a branch after that. If
there is not a schedule for 1.2.11 or there are resource constraints I
could certainly help time to drive a good release.
It depends on how much help we can get, but I'm confident
On 2011-08-17, Tasos Vogiatzoglou wrote:
Does ASF have a build server or something that can build, run tests
and produce binaries ?
It has, but there is nothing set up for log4net right now.
The most sane choice would be the Jenkins[1] installation as there already
are other .NET projects
Hi all,
this is how I think we could get to a 1.2.11 release in the timeframe of
about a month:
(1) look at all issues currently reported and assign them to
1.2.11 if
(a) they describe a reproducible bug that we know how to
fix
(b) they wish for a feature that looks
On 2011-08-17, Roy Chastain wrote:
I like it all with the possible exception of attempting to produce 4.0
targeted assembly in the short term 1.2.11. I THINK that will delay the
process. If it does not, then fine - no problem.
I hope it is mainly a matter of upgrading NAnt and mimicing what
On 2011-08-18, Dominik Psenner wrote:
this is how I think we could get to a 1.2.11 release in the timeframe of
about a month
Looks fine, no objections.
Good.
I've managed to get NAnt 0.91apha2 working after some hassles, I hope to
be able to build assemblies targeting 4.0 by tommorow.
If
On 2011-08-18, Dominik Psenner wrote:
I've managed to get NAnt 0.91apha2 working after some hassles, I hope to
be able to build assemblies targeting 4.0 by tommorow.
That's great news! I ran out of luck the last time I tried it, but I'm quite
unused to NAnt anyway. So that could have been
Hi all,
http://people.apache.org/~bodewig/log4net/ contains DLLs I've built
from trunk targeting .NET 2.0, 3.5 and 4.0 respectively. Neither of
them signed. The ZIP contains all DLLs/XMLs/PDBs.
It would be nice if anybody apart from myself could confirm they look
OK.
Tasos, it would be good
Hi,
Roy said in some thread people had reported problems with the ADO.NET
appender when running on .NET 4.0.
I managed to get to the point where NAnt at least tries to run the unit
tests on 4.0 and this is what I see:
Unhandled Exception: System.TypeLoadException: Inheritance security rules
On 2011-08-19, Roy Chastain wrote:
While, this is certainly a problem, it SHOULD not be the issue already
reported, because those reports were against log4Net running on the 2.0
CLR instead of the 4.0 CLR.
OK.
I have done some research this morning, and have found a couple of
articles
On 2011-08-19, Roy Chastain wrote:
I have done some research this morning, and have found a couple of
articles suggesting fixes, but I do not yet understand the
ramifications. This is all to do with a new code security model created
in 4.0 and it is going to take time to understand.
If
On 2011-08-19, Roy Chastain wrote:
I just found this statement
In Express Editions of Visual Studio, a .NET Framework version or
profile cannot be specified when a project is created. However, you can
later retarget the project to any installed .NET Framework version.
At
On 2011-08-20, Roy Chastain wrote:
I should add that NAnt.exe.config contains
NetFx40_LegacySecurityPolicy enabled=true/
and seems to need it. This may complicate things even further.
See this http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd409253.aspx
Yes, I knew that, I should have
Hi all,
before I started to modifiy things for 4.0 and client profile the NAnt
build was setting a compilation symbol for the family like NET,
NETCF, MONO and one for the specific version NET_1_1, NET_2_0
and so on. Also the conditional compilation sections seem to not assume
NET_2_0 was a
Hi Ron,
good to hear from you.
On 2011-08-25, Ron Grabowski wrote:
Is your .NET 4 support just in the NAnt scripts?
Yes, exclusively.
It's probably safe to replace the VS2008 solution file with a VS2010
version.
I didn't go that far because my VS insisted on converting the project
files
On 2011-08-21, Roy Chastain wrote:
We must have many conditionals. As you noted 2.0 is not a superset of
1.1 and 4.0 is not a superset of 2.0. Because of CAS and other issues,
2.0 and 4.0 may be in direct opposition.
Agreed.
3.0 and 3.5 are indeed supersets of 2.0, but I doubt their
Hi,
I've run VS 2010's static code analysis using the security rule set on
the current code base and fixed all places where it complained about
transparent code referencing security-critical code or code overriding
security-critical methods.
The result is a bit more than the SecurityCritical
Hi all,
as you have seen in the storm of JIRA emails I went through all JIRA
issues and assigned them to some fix version. Some of them looked
invalid but I only closed the most obvious ones.
After I now have read all of them, on piece of code is sticking out as a
major pain point:
On 2011-09-06, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
while looking into the failing unit tests I started to wonder whether
TestMinimalLockUnlocks in RollingFileAppenderTest has ever passed - and
if it actually can.
I should have looked through svn history first. svn revision 607475
which adds the new
Hi all,
based in major parts on work done by Curt earlier and inspired by
log4php I've created a mvn site-plugin based version of the log4net
site. The current result can be seen here
http://people.apache.org/~bodewig/log4net/site/ and it should be very
similar to the existing site.
The major
On 2011-09-07, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
looked at it - great job Stefan.
Curt had already done most of the conversion from the Anakia based site.
There is only thing I found so quick - look at the logo top left you have
used.
You could replace it with the logo here:
Hi all,
1.2.10 is distributed as a single ZIP with source and binaries for all
supported platforms. Normal ASF procedure is to have separate
downloads for source-only and binary-plus-doc releases and to provide
ZIPs as well as tar.gz tarballs.
How do we want to package 1.2.11?
I personally
Hi,
I don't expect us to release betas or any other kind of two releases
that would only differ in the forth digit of the version number. So we
could simply set it to 0 (which I think currently happens in trunk,
didn't check).
Right now I'm afraid I won't be able to build all binaries on the
On 2011-09-08, Michael Schall wrote:
Interesting. How do you integrate this with your build process?
I can give you specifics if you want, but we use MSBuild and MSBuild
Community Tasks (http://msbuildtasks.tigris.org/)...
We have a target that uses the SvnInfo task to find the
On 2011-09-08, Dominik Guder wrote:
using nant for retreiving svn revision to property svn.revision:
use svn log (repository access)
exec program=svn.exe workingdir=${svnroot} verbose=false
output=_svnrevision.xml failonerror=true
arg value=log /
arg line=${svnroot} --xml
Hi,
as stated in LOG4NET-310 EventLogAppender runs into a SecurityException
on Vista and newer if the event source doesn't exist.
ActivateOptions tries to see whether the source exists and create it if
it doesn't. Starting with Vista even looking for a source that doesn't
exist will throw a
On 2011-09-12, Roy Chastain wrote:
When I looked at this code a few years ago, I thought it was overly
complicated and obtuse. Since spending the day with it today, and
discovering the invalid assumption, I stand by my original opinion.
I was afraid you'd say that when you volunteered to
On 2011-09-12, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On 2011-09-11, Roy Chastain wrote:
(1) document that you need to create your event sources outside of
your application (usually during deployment) and (2) deal with the
SecurityException in a more graceful way (log something and disable
the appender
On 2011-09-12, Dominik Guder wrote:
Am 09.09.2011 05:52, schrieb Stefan Bodewig:
On 2011-09-08, Dominik Guder wrote:
using nant for retreiving svn revision to property svn.revision:
use svn log (repository access)
exec program=svn.exe workingdir=${svnroot} verbose=false
output
On 2011-09-12, Roy Chastain wrote:
I have a new class that I implemented several years ago. It provides a
DynamicPatternConverter. Its primary purpose is to provide dynamic
headers and footers in logs.
Aren't you paying a big price for this by also making the normal
pattern dynamic? Maybe
Hi,
LOG4NET-164 introduced a new locking strategy for FileAppender which
technically uses a System.Threading.Mutex with a name built from the log
file's name. This should allow separate processes to share a log file
without repeatedly opening and closing it.
The main remaining issue is its name
On 2011-09-13, Dominik Psenner wrote:
LOG4NET-164 introduced a new locking strategy for FileAppender which
technically uses a System.Threading.Mutex with a name built from the log
file's name. This should allow separate processes to share a log file
without repeatedly opening and closing it.
Hi all,
in order to shape up for the release I diffed the 1.2.10 release ZIP
source tree against current trunk's src and used BitDiffer from
bitwidgets[1] to compare the DEBUG assemblies targeting 2.0 in binary.
The results can be found in
http://people.apache.org/~bodewig/log4net/diffs/
The
On 2011-09-14, Ron Grabowski wrote:
Can you share a config snippet showing how to use the RemotingAppender
like you've described?
We used to have an extraordinally simple Windows Service at $work that
didn't do much but using log4net writing to a file and starting the
Hi all,
I now have an environment that builds .NET 1.1 up to 4.0 (including
client profile) and both Mono targets.
For .NET 1.0 and ECMA I can't find any traces, for SSCLI 1.0 I do find
hints at a source code only download for the 2.0 version but don't have
any idea whether this would work with
Hi,
I'm down to one failing test on my Ubuntu Linux box (Ubuntu 10.4 with
Mono 2.4, I'm conservative 8-):
RollingFileAppender.TestExclusiveLockLocks.
What happens on Linux is that an attempt to open a locked file throws an
exception (as expected by the test) but the file is truncated anyway.
On 2011-09-16, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On 2011-09-15, Roy Chastain wrote:
You have to go back to VS.NET (circa 2000) for .NET 1.0. I really hope
no one is still using 1.0.
Maybe it is time to drop support for it with 1.2.11 already.
A kind soul still found the .NET 1.0 SDK and made
On 2011-09-15, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
For .NET 1.0 and ECMA I can't find any traces,
Both are the same - and covered now.
for SSCLI 1.0 I do find hints at a source code only download for the
2.0 version but don't have any idea whether this would work with NAnt
(and needed to figure out how
On 2011-09-16, Roy Chastain wrote:
I am trying to remember if there were two version of the compact
framework. I am not sure of my memory, BUT I think there was both CF
1.1 and 2.0 release. If so, that most likely means both versions.
The NAnt build file has compilation targets for CF 1.0
On 2011-09-16, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
I did not install the 2.0 SDK but the 3.5SP1 one, maybe the CF tools are
part of the 2.0 SDK, I'll give that a try as well.
After installing .NET SDK 2.0 the NAnt build also tries to build the CF
2.0 stuff, but not the 1.0 stuff. Getting closer.
Stefan
Hi Gert,
great to hear from you.
On 2011-09-16, gert.drie...@telenet.be wrote:
If I recall correctly, the CF tools are/were only available as part of
Visual Studio.
The .NET 2.0 SDK provided the command line tools required to build the
CF 2.0 assembly. The same is not true for CF 1.0.
I
Hi all,
I'm currently trying to make the necessary site modifications for the
1.2.11 release (for example we no longer build with VS 2008) and
wondered whether we intend to bundle the examples with the binary
distributions. If not, I can remove all links to them as the source
dirstribution will
On 2011-09-18, Roy Chastain wrote:
After having spent two weekends looking at and playing with the code, I
have decided that I do not have clear understanding of my target.
Poor you.
Given that it appears that I am going to break the internal contract for
RFA and the ambiguity in the
On 2011-09-19, Dominik Psenner wrote:
file value=bla.log/
datePattern value=MMddHHmm /
rollFileConfiguration
rollFileCondition size=5MB /
rollFileLimitation maxcount=5 /
/rollFileConfiguration
Grouping the properties that affect the rolling strategy and separating
them from the
On 2011-09-13, Roy Chastain wrote:
I like InterProcessLock and would like to propose MultiProcessLock as my
favorite.
InterProcessLock it is.
I HOPE that the documentation will indicate what a bad plan this is and
that a remoteing appender etc might be a better plan.
Please take a look at
On 2011-09-20, Roy Chastain wrote:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4net/trunk/src/site/xdoc/re
lease/faq.xml looks good with the exception of ) and has also be paid
for by a loss in performance.
May I suggest a rewording of . The acquisition and release of a Mutex
for every log
On 2011-09-20, Roy Chastain wrote:
Based on the below, I would suggest a big disclaimer that RFA will NOT
LOCK with Mutex during the rolling and will lead to extremely
unpredictable results.
Just put the disclaimer where you mention that RFA will make it worse.
Done, at least I think so.
Hi all,
sorry for the cross-post but I'd like to catch oh no, you can't do
that! responses as soon as possible.
Apart from a few documentation and packaging issues Apache log4net
1.2.11 seems to be pretty much ready for a release. One thing that is
holding up the process is the - let's say
On 2011-09-28, Roy Chastain wrote:
Best of luck to all.
Sorry to hear that.
Stefan
Hi all,
unfortunately I had real-life interfere and was unable to devote as much
time as I wanted to.
AFAICS the only things missing now are some updates to the NAnt build
system to create the distribution files - which are different from what
was packaged as 1.2.10 - and some updates to the
Hi all,
there are three ZIPs in http://people.apache.org/~bodewig/log4net/
that correspond to what a release would look like. I mainly created
them to validate the build scripts but if you want to you may view them
as some sort of release candidate.
The archives have been created from trunk,
Hi Dominik,
On 2011-09-30, Dominik Psenner wrote:
I request some feedback on the RFA-NG patch while I'm working on it.
Thank you for working on it and thank you for nagging.
The coming weekend - including the German holiday on Monday - is going
to be quite hectic (two birthdays in the family
On 2011-10-04, Dominik Psenner wrote:
Don't forget the böllern
Fortunately we don't do that in the lower rhine area 8-)
How comes that? The last time I've seen it was about a month ago. There they
used flasks of gas having the length of half a meter. It could have easily
been mistaken for
On 2011-10-05, Dominik Psenner wrote:
I believe the prerequisites in FAQ could be updated to not mention .net
runtime 1.0/1.1 since the release doesn't include binaries for them.
It does (it won't contain binaries for Compact Framework 1.0).
Stefan
On 2011-10-05, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
I looked at all pages, nothing found. I have checked brandmark
requirements, all well.
Thanks
Just a minor thing, not important: if you go to this link:
http://people.apache.org/~bodewig/log4net/site/issue-tracking.html
Issue tracking is 2 times in
Hi,
for anybody who wants to give it a try, there now is a ReviewBoard group
at https://reviews.apache.org/groups/logging-log4net/
Stefan
Hi all,
the vote has passed with five +1s by PMC members (Scott, Ivan,
Christian, Ron, myself) and two further +1s by community members
(Javier, Dominik) and I'll proceed with the process.
The release artifacts are already in the dist area and are waiting for
the mirrors to pick them up. Once I
On 2011-10-11, Curt Arnold wrote:
both bin/2.0/release/log4net.dll and bin/3.5/release/log4net.dll
describe themselves as Apache log4net for the .NET Framework
2.0. Everybody else has the expected application description.
Those two DLLs are the same file as there currently is no difference
On 2011-10-12, Curt Arnold wrote:
On Oct 11, 2011, at 4:02 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On 2011-10-11, Curt Arnold wrote:
both bin/2.0/release/log4net.dll and bin/3.5/release/log4net.dll
describe themselves as Apache log4net for the .NET Framework
2.0. Everybody else has the expected
On 2011-10-12, cremor wrote:
I just saw that the new site with the 1.2.11 release was published
(many thanks for that btw!) so I assume it should be downloadable
too.
Yes, it is.
But all the mirror links are broken for me.
I know and that's why I haven't sent out the announcement yet. The
://logging.apache.org/log4net/release/faq.html#two-snks
for details.
The binary distributions no longer contain assemblies built for the
Compact Framework 1.0 or the Shared Source CLI - you can build those
yourself using the source distribution.
Stefan Bodewig on behalf of the log4net community
On 2011-12-23, Ramon Smits wrote:
I can share some thought about this new key philosophy regarding they
anyone should be able to patch it but I think it is wrong. How can I
validate a package from untrusted sources if they have access to the
'official' private key ?
The only official binary
On 2012-01-13, Ron Grabowski wrote:
Anyone know why there are extended chars in most of the log4net ndoc
files? For example this page has empty-blocks in IE9 and
triangle-question-marks in Firefox:
No idea, I used the existing ndoc target in the NAnt build file that I
assume has been used for
On 2012-04-11, Ron Grabowski wrote:
The converter is trying to protect itself...the base class checks to
make sure HttpContext.Current is not null then a check against Request
is made:
Sounds like checking the property throws an exception. Its probably ok
to just add in a try/catch and
Hi all,
we currently create the online API docs via the ancient NDoc and HTML
Help compiler combo. When I put together the 1.2.11 release I was lucky
enough to use a machine that had been in use for a long time and so had
all the required pieces installed.
Now my dev environment is a freshly
1 - 100 of 831 matches
Mail list logo
