I do not, I simply emailed him via the NuGet package page for log4net. I will forward to you off list.
> On Aug 26, 2015, at 11:45 AM, Dominik Psenner <dpsen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 26 Aug 2015 6:05 pm, "Jeremiah Gowdy" <jerem...@gowdy.me > <mailto:jerem...@gowdy.me>> wrote: > > > > Following up on this, I contacted the package maintainer and they said they > > are willing to transfer ownership to the log4net project. > > Thats great news. Do you happen to know him in person? > > > > >> On Aug 26, 2015, at 8:15 AM, jerem...@gowdy.me <mailto:jerem...@gowdy.me> > >> wrote: > >> > >> If we can't force the owner of the nuget log4net package to work with us, > >> why not package it as log4net official or apache-log4net. I don't get why > >> packaging is off topic for the release of a .NET library. If we are > >> seeking to increase the user base, I would think an official package in > >> the package manager of choice would be a key component of that. > >> > >> On Aug 26, 2015, at 8:06 AM, Dominik Psenner <a...@apache.org > >> <mailto:a...@apache.org>> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi again, > >>> > >>> I wanted this discussion to stay open for a week and that time is over > >>> now. For now I'll try to answer questions and clarify a few things so > >>> that you get another chance to raise your voice. > >>> > >>> > Will the code be compatible with the current version? > >>> > >>> The API should stay more or less the same, but eventually a few things > >>> will be dropped. Among them will be properties like IsDebugEnabled, which > >>> could be handled very well internally with late evaluation of log > >>> messages. > >>> > >>> > Just be bold and embrace .NET 4.5 > >>> > >>> I'm not at all against it, but there's almost no profit to target 4.5 > >>> over 4.0, but with 4.0 we have a much larger audience. Personally I do > >>> simply want the #ifdefs to be gone for good. That said, I've the > >>> impression that everything that doesn't fit into log4net core only with > >>> #ifdefs should be dropped. > >>> > >>> > Forget supporting the current appenders. > >>> > I would approve of dropping high complexity, low reward appenders like > >>> > outdated .NET remoting. > >>> > >>> We will add filters and appenders that are easy to implement (or already > >>> there) for the targeted framework. To be honest, only what causes more > >>> trouble that it is worth will be dropped. :-) > >>> > >>> > What we do need with the appender interface is install/uninstall hooks. > >>> > >>> Nice idea. This will have to be worked out as early as possible such that > >>> the new API can be designed to fit the needs. > >>> > >>> > We also need to take ownership of nuget packaging log4net. > >>> > >>> This discussion is off topic and has already been dealt with. We simply > >>> cannot force the owner of the nuget package to work with us and that's it. > >>> > >>> > Personally I'd like to emphasize > >>> >> [1] To make this come true there will be the need for a few helping > >>> >> hands > >>> > >>> Thanks Justin, I'm glad that you're willing to lend a hand! > >>> > >>> Everyone else, please note that the more hands we can get, the faster and > >>> easier it is going to be. Thus, volunteers, jump out of your bushes! > >>> > >>> That's it from me, for now; > >>> > >>> > >>> 2015-08-22 19:09 GMT+02:00 Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org > >>> <mailto:bode...@apache.org>>: > >>>> > >>>> On 2015-08-19, <dpsen...@apache.org <mailto:dpsen...@apache.org>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > Last night I've dreamed a dream and in that dream the release process > >>>> > of > >>>> > log4net happened on a flick of a switch. > >>>> > >>>> A wonderful dream. > >>>> > >>>> Personally I'd like to emphasize > >>>> > >>>> > [1] To make this come true there will be the need for a few helping > >>>> > hands > >>>> > and therefore this message goes to people that use log4net and want > >>>> > log4net > >>>> > to be revived. > >>>> > >>>> even stronger. > >>>> > >>>> Stefan > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Dominik Psenner > >>>> > >
