Re: [POLL] (Was Re: Et resurrexit tertia die.)

On Fri, 19 May 2017 09:15:59 -0500 William A Rowe Jr wrote: > That sounds like a super headache, It's that already. Stripping out timedlock code for alien platforms is a huge risk that something as simple as a typo breaks it all. -- Nick Kew

Re: [POLL] (Was Re: Et resurrexit tertia die.)

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 4:06 AM, Nick Kew wrote: > 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 wrote: >> > I think we've done most of 1.6.0, modulo a couple of questionmarks. >> > >> > Potentially open

Re: [POLL] (Was Re: Et resurrexit tertia die.)

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 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

Re: [POLL] (Was Re: Et resurrexit tertia die.)

On 05/19/2017 07:14 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 4:40 AM, Nick Kew 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

Re: [POLL] (Was Re: Et resurrexit tertia die.)

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:14 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > [ ] Release 1.x may include experimental features, disabled by default > [ ] Release 1.x may include experimental features, enabled by default > [+1] Releases don't include experimental features My own take is

[POLL] (Was Re: Et resurrexit tertia die.)

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 4:40 AM, Nick Kew 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