apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1790105 - in /apr/apr/branches/1.6.x: locks/unix/misc.c locks/unix/proc_mutex.c locks/unix/thread_mutex.c test/testlock.c
Date Wed, 05 Apr 2017 14:17:32 GMT
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Nick Kew <niq@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 08:11 -0500, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
>> > Maybe we should reconsider the whole idea of timedlocks??
>>
>> Without throwing them out wholesale, in the interest of other 1.6.0
>> enhancements, is it reasonable to keep developing this on 2.0-dev
>> trunk, and back it out entirely from 1.6.x branch for now?
>
> Howbout a --with-experimental-timedlocks config option ?

+1

>>  (Not sure
>> if forking 1.7.x from 1.6.x and then backing out from 1.6.x is the
>> simplest way to make that happen, but guessing it is.)
>
> Please, no 1.7 until 1.6-release is out of the door!
>
> We can then decide whether a 1.7 is needed, or whether the
> future can be 2.0 and bugfixes.

It shouldn't be hard to copy 1.6.x at any pre-backout tag to 1.7.x,
and then forward port the short list of commits.

But the suggestion above renders this issue moot. I like it,
although anyone toggling an -experimental flag is expected
to understand their resulting apr breaks binary compatibility.

Mime
View raw message