Sorry for the noise, but I have to correct myself. This here is the right link:
https://bitbucket.org/NachbarsLumpi/log4net-patches/src/tip/RFA-NG
The concentration is almost gone, I better go off to bed now. :-)
--
Dominik Psenner
## OpenPGP Key Signature #
# Key
> Thanks for the information. This means that today, specifically in the
> evening around 20°°, I'm going to try my best to come up with a
> "RollingFileAppenderNG" implementation that derives from FileAppender.
> Therefore the first layout of the RFA-NG will be much like the current RFA.
> We can
I think it would be beneficial to add the svn url (with revision) to
the assembly description then so this information is available to the
end user.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> after playing with it I was faced with a compiler warning about the
> format.
>My current plan is to dummy up a new RFA (configuration points) and
>write the XML doc for the configuration points and pass the result of
>that out for review and comments. We must be explicit about the
>semantics of the new configuration. We have already observed cases
>where I have not correc
>A sandbox is typically a branch or repository that is used to "play"
around with
>new code. I'll probably have to share that code through bitbucket as I
don't have
>the privileges to commit to the repository. Or can I get sufficient
privileges to
>commit to a branch in the ASF repository?
>
>Roy,
Hi all,
after playing with it I was faced with a compiler warning about the
format. "Standard" version formats require the numbers to be unsigned
shorts whose range the ASF's svn revisions have long left behind.
The result is not only a warning that we could ignore but also a version
number that
