On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Nick Kew <n...@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.
