Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 904B1200B8B for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 16:06:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 8EF03160AC9; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 14:06:34 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id D5025160AC5 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 16:06:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 56485 invoked by uid 500); 4 Oct 2016 14:06:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact log4net-user-help@logging.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: "Log4NET User" List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list log4net-user@logging.apache.org Received: (qmail 56476 invoked by uid 99); 4 Oct 2016 14:06:33 -0000 Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mail-relay.apache.org) (140.211.11.15) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Oct 2016 14:06:33 +0000 Received: from v45346.1blu.de (v45346.1blu.de [178.254.23.72]) by mail-relay.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mail-relay.apache.org) with ESMTPSA id A78081A0118 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 14:06:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by v45346.1blu.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BF14F400010; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 16:06:29 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan Bodewig To: Log4NET User Subject: Re: Apache log4net Needs Help References: <871t0x1xb0.fsf@v45346.1blu.de> <87twdjayob.fsf@v45346.1blu.de> <87int8oigo.fsf@v45346.1blu.de> Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2016 16:06:29 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Nicholas Duane's message of "Tue, 4 Oct 2016 13:40:44 +0000") Message-ID: <87k2docioq.fsf@v45346.1blu.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain archived-at: Tue, 04 Oct 2016 14:06:34 -0000 On 2016-10-04, Nicholas Duane wrote: > While I realize resources are needed to make any changes to the code base, even if resources are/become available it's yet another (big?) decision on whether the changes that are made to log4net are ones which will take it off into its own direction or whether a new version of log4net is created which is a port of lo4j2. Absolutely. That's why I qualified it with "who want to do the porting work" :-) Whether a log4j2 port happens or not really is decided by the people who are willing and able to invest the time needed. The same is true for any other decision we take. There is no "business plan" for log4net, those who do the work decide about what gets done. I hear you and I understand why a log4net closer to log4j2 might be attractive but I am completely unable to devote the time needed for something that would more or less amount in a rewrite. Cheers Stefan