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
