Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update to Serilog 3 and update TFMs #55

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Conversation

Numpsy
Copy link
Member

@Numpsy Numpsy commented Oct 15, 2023

Usual question about TFMs to target that pop up in all the repos - should it be a complete match for Serilog 3.0, or a smaller set of what's needed?

In this draft:

Both Framework 4.6.2 and 4.7.1 to create an explicit reference to the 4.7.1 version of the core lib that doesn't depend on the System.ValueTuple nuget package

.NET 6 as the oldest supported .NET Core version, and to explicity use the .NET Core versions of the Serilog core lib (avoids the dependencies on System.Diagnostics.DiagnosticSource in the latest versions

.NET Standard 2.0 for everything else.

So question - is there a need for .NET Standard 2.1 / NET 5.0/7.0 etc?

Note: The TFMs in the unit test project are just set to match the core Serilog lib

@Numpsy
Copy link
Member Author

Numpsy commented Oct 15, 2023

Related note: can see about doing the same change to the process and thread enrichers after the TFMs are confirmed, so they're all consisteny

@bartelink
Copy link
Member

My opinion (but backed by some research, linked below)
Keep net462/net471 if they are not causing pain.
NS2.0 is good to keep for lots of reasons
Address core by supporting net6.0 unless there is something that can only be achieved by targeting a specific later TFM
Drop net5.0, NS21; don't add 7.0 (See also serilog/serilog#1966)

@Numpsy Numpsy mentioned this pull request Oct 26, 2023
@Numpsy
Copy link
Member Author

Numpsy commented Jun 7, 2024

I'll close this in favour of #63

@Numpsy Numpsy closed this Jun 7, 2024
@nblumhardt
Copy link
Member

Sorry @Numpsy, not sure how this slipped off the radar - I might be tracking a few too many things 😅

@Numpsy Numpsy deleted the rw/ser_3 branch June 10, 2024 09:17
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants