garydgregory commented on pull request #19:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j1/pull/19#issuecomment-1079988268
Hello @Suji04
This repository is not open for business. Please use Log4j 2.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message,
garydgregory closed pull request #19:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j1/pull/19
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-un
-575.
We have been using this package in most of the applications. Can you please
provide an update whether you have any plans to release this patch or not.
If it will not be released in future, then can we apply patch on 2.0.8 version
code base manually and rebuild the log4net library to fix this
https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/106
Hi Kenneth,
which patch? Where is it so that someone can review this patch?
Cheers
2017-08-05 10:11 GMT+02:00 kenneth mcfarland :
> I am politely asking for someone to merge my patch. I realize it is 31
> files but the reading is at a 1st grade level and it makes our code look
> pro
I am politely asking for someone to merge my patch. I realize it is 31
files but the reading is at a 1st grade level and it makes our code look
professional. Thanks.
, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Dominik Psenner
wrote:
And pull requests provide a place for discussions and code review.
2017-06-22 18:15 GMT+02:00 Matt Sicker :
Pull requests are definitely easier to merge, plus you get a nicer online
diff tool that way. Patch files are fine, too, but only if you prefer
2:00 Matt Sicker :
>
> > Pull requests are definitely easier to merge, plus you get a nicer online
> > diff tool that way. Patch files are fine, too, but only if you prefer
> > submitting them that way.
> >
> > On 22 June 2017 at 10:53, Gary Gregory wrote:
> >
&
And pull requests provide a place for discussions and code review.
2017-06-22 18:15 GMT+02:00 Matt Sicker :
> Pull requests are definitely easier to merge, plus you get a nicer online
> diff tool that way. Patch files are fine, too, but only if you prefer
> submitting them that way.
Pull requests are definitely easier to merge, plus you get a nicer online
diff tool that way. Patch files are fine, too, but only if you prefer
submitting them that way.
On 22 June 2017 at 10:53, Gary Gregory wrote:
> It is really up to you, what ever works for you.
>
> Gary
>
>
It is really up to you, what ever works for you.
Gary
On Jun 22, 2017 03:38, "Pierrick HYMBERT"
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What is the most appropriate way for log4j team to handle external
> contribution ? GitHub Pull Request or Patch file ?
>
> I used to attach patch in ji
Hi,
What is the most appropriate way for log4j team to handle external
contribution ? GitHub Pull Request or Patch file ?
I used to attach patch in jira from my local branch, but then I tried
tutorial from Gary [1] and see that it is possible to ask for PR directly
from github forked repo [2
12 matches
Mail list logo
