Or even 1.7? :)
> On Apr 10, 2017, at 9:35 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
> Agreed across the board. 1 has fixes and concensus, 2-4 can be fixed in 2.0.
>
> There is a fix for the appearance of offline resources on Windows as
> symlinks, only junctions and symlinks to first and files should have appeared
> as symlinks, I will address that state by Tues Eve. Will be checking the
> state of Windows in the process.
>
> Will skim bugzilla was last time for very low hanging fruit, but a T&R later
> this week sounds great, whomever wants to jump in. Thanks for helping us keep
> the focus, Nick!
>
>
>
> On Apr 10, 2017 04:40, "Nick Kew" <n...@apache.org> wrote:
> I think we've done most of 1.6.0, modulo a couple of questionmarks.
> I'm thinking it would be good to roll an actual release in time
> for the resurrection :)
>
> Potentially open issues are (in no particular order):
> 1. Mark timedlocks experimental
> 2. Revisit default mutex methods
> 3. apr_file_copy perms fix
> 4. Backport object perms patch
>
> I've changed my mind on (1), and am happy to leave things as-is
> with recent patches. If they don't get out there, we won't get
> the feedback, as witness the fact we only noticed there was a
> problem when I test-drove on Mac.
>
> Regarding (2), I'm inclined to leave as-is. Tinker in trunk!
>
> Regarding (3), a fix is good but not a showstopper.
>
> (4) is the harder one. I've read through it and all looks
> fine, but it's too big to nod through comfortably, and I
> haven't attempted to devise a test case. My inclination
> is to leave it for now.
>
> Questions:
> - is there a (5) I've overlooked?
> - anyone want to shoot me down on (1) to (4)?
> - anyone want to shoot me down on rolling by Easter?
> - anyone want to claim the roll, or shall I?
>
> --
> Nick Kew
>
>
