On Fri, 2017-05-19 at 00:14 -0500, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 4:40 AM, Nick Kew <n...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I think we've done most of 1.6.0, modulo a couple of questionmarks.
> >
> > Potentially open issues are (in no particular order):
> > 1.  Mark timedlocks experimental
> The underlying question which we haven't resolved, and which our
> discussion didn't draw out enough opinions/voices, boils down to this
> simple question...

Thanks for resurrecting this.  I thought I'd shut up on
the subject while some folks were likely doing ApacheCon.

In this instance, we're using "experimental" as a euphemism
for known-to-be-unready.  As such, we shouldn't be encouraging
anyone to use it with a current release, and should probably
turn it off as a build option.  No need to remove it entirely:
code that is #ifdef'd out with HAVE_TIMEDLOCK will only be
seen by those who dig deep enough to find it.

There's another issue here: the non-unix platforms all have it.
If we take it out from Unix altogether, we need to remove it
from them too.  Else we're taking the P from APR!

Which brings me to ...

> [  ] Release 1.x may include experimental features, disabled by default
> [  ] Release 1.x may include experimental features, enabled by default
> [ *] Releases don't include experimental features

Refined to:

[ ] Releases don't include too-experimental features, but MAY
include code for them #ifdef'd out.
[ ] Strip out the offending code altogether for release.

Nick Kew

Reply via email to