Is there anyway I can to help move this forward (I do not have an Apache account)?
My PR#21 (https://github.com/apache/logging-log4cxx/pull/21) remains un-reviewed. I have created a migration tool https://github.com/stephen-webb/log4cxx_10_to_11 for anyone who has the same migration issues as I. Regards Stephen Webb On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 3:16 AM Tobias Frost <t...@coldtobi.de> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 04:51:28PM +1100, Stephen Webb wrote: > > > I would be surprised if any unix distribution would change to 0.11 > log4cxx > > if its API is incompatible with 0.10. > > With my Debian maintainer hat on: > This is nothing special and day to day businesss with distos: > > It will "just" invoke a library transition [1], and the new binary > packages will be named according to the new SONAME, e.g liblog4cxx11 > After the transition the old library version will be removed from > Debian. > > Frankly, I'm really looking forward to have a new liblog4cxx for > Debian, and now (as we are still some time away from the next Debian > release) would be absolutly the best time for a new release. > The new version just fixes so many issues that it really pays off the > extra work for packaging and the transtion, introduced by the SONAME > bump. (my 2cent…) > > -- > Cheers, > tobi > > [1] https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/Transitions > > > Regards > > Stephen Webb > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 4:28 AM Thorsten Schöning <tschoen...@am-soft.de> > > wrote: > > > > > Guten Tag Ralph Goers, > > > am Montag, 2. März 2020 um 16:34 schrieben Sie: > > > > > > > There is a difference between a user’s compile failing vs the build > > > > having changed. > > > > > > And which? Things don't work in the worst case either way and need to > > > be adopted. Why exactly is getting rid of build support by ANT > > > acceptable for users relying on that, but applying LOGCXX-319 might(!) > > > not be? > > > > > > If I remember correctly, the concrete changes could even be adopted > > > using automatic search&replace. > > > > > > > Given how old log4cxx is I would expect it to be > > > > used in a fair number of places despite its version number. > > > > > > And a fair number of users applied either the available patches > > > already since the last release or simply work with master already > > > anyway. I can't remember anyone complaining about the changes > > > introcuded by that concrete issue in the last years as well. > > > > > > > I > > > > haven’t looked at the code myself but is there no way to keep it > > > > backward compatible while also keeping the new changes? > > > > > > In my opinion this is an unnecessary meta-discussion until a concrete > > > problem has been described introduced by LOGCXX-319 or other changes. > > > So at least I won't reconsider each and every change since the last > > > release. > > > > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen, > > > > > > Thorsten Schöning > > > > > > -- > > > Thorsten Schöning E-Mail: thorsten.schoen...@am-soft.de > > > AM-SoFT IT-Systeme http://www.AM-SoFT.de/ > > > > > > Telefon...........05151- 9468- 55 > > > Fax...............05151- 9468- 88 > > > Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04 > > > > > > AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln > > > AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow > > > > > > >
