I’d be happy to merge it if someone involved with the project (even a non-committer) can look at it. I don’t normally work on Windows so trying to run a build with it is a bit more than I would like to do.
Ralph > On Mar 29, 2020, at 7:19 PM, Stephen Webb <swebb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 >>>> >>>> >>
