Re: [VOTE] Release _timedlock API in 1.6.x?

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 7:48 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Nick Kew wrote: >> >> I see you've done the deed. Thanks. > > Getting there, apologies for the disruption of branches/1.6.x/ > > Follow up testing should take a day

Re: [VOTE] Release _timedlock API in 1.6.x?

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:56 PM, William A Rowe Jr > wrote: >> On May 19, 2017 2:21 PM, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote: >> >> [+0.9] Release current svn _timedlock API

Re: [VOTE] Release _timedlock API in 1.6.x?

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote: > On 05/23/2017 11:42 PM, Nick Kew wrote: >> >> On Fri, 2017-05-19 at 14:22 -0500, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:21 PM, William A Rowe Jr >>> wrote: [-0]

Re: [VOTE] Release _timedlock API in 1.6.x?

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Nick Kew wrote: > On Fri, 2017-05-19 at 14:22 -0500, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:21 PM, William A Rowe Jr >> wrote: >> > [-0] Release current svn _timedlock API implementation in 1.6 >> >> My own

Re: [VOTE] Release _timedlock API in 1.6.x?

On 05/23/2017 11:42 PM, Nick Kew wrote: On Fri, 2017-05-19 at 14:22 -0500, William A Rowe Jr wrote: On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:21 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: [-0] Release current svn _timedlock API implementation in 1.6 My own vote, I suspect it has enjoyed 2/3 of the

Re: [VOTE] Release _timedlock API in 1.6.x?

On Fri, 2017-05-19 at 14:22 -0500, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:21 PM, William A Rowe Jr > wrote: > > [-0] Release current svn _timedlock API implementation in 1.6 > > My own vote, I suspect it has enjoyed 2/3 of the scrutiny needed > to be called

Re: [VOTE] Release _timedlock API in 1.6.x?

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > > a similar implementation to apr_thread_mutex_timedlock() (which > seems to work as expected now). Please read "similar to apr_proc_mutex_timedlock()"...

Re: [VOTE] Release _timedlock API in 1.6.x?

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:56 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On May 19, 2017 2:21 PM, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote: > > [+0.9] Release current svn _timedlock API implementation in 1.6 I won't complain if it's not released, but I'm not sure there are still

Re: [VOTE] Release _timedlock API in 1.6.x?

On Mon, 22 May 2017 09:56:54 -0500 William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On May 19, 2017 2:21 PM, "William A Rowe Jr" > wrote: > > [ ] Release current svn _timedlock API implementation in 1.6 > > This seems to be the only questionable item remaining, and > this

Re: [VOTE] Release _timedlock API in 1.6.x?

On May 19, 2017 2:21 PM, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote: [ ] Release current svn _timedlock API implementation in 1.6 This seems to be the only questionable item remaining, and this vote (and an enhancement may be vetoed, AIUI) is very distinct from the poll on experimental

Re: [VOTE] Release _timedlock API in 1.6.x?

I am conflicted... I'm still now sure what the real expected use-cases are, and don't feel that it's quite solid/stable enough for inclusion. But on the other hand, knowing the delays we have between API-changing releases, NOT having it in 1.6 basically puts it to bed for a long, long time, in

Re: [VOTE] Release _timedlock API in 1.6.x?

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:21 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > [-0] Release current svn _timedlock API implementation in 1.6 My own vote, I suspect it has enjoyed 2/3 of the scrutiny needed to be called the "best available release" and should be ready to release soon, but not

[VOTE] Release _timedlock API in 1.6.x?

[ ] Release current svn _timedlock API implementation in 1.6 This seems to be the only questionable item remaining, and this vote (and an enhancement may be vetoed, AIUI) is very distinct from the poll on experimental features. Please vote, thanks.