Re: Backing out timedlock? (Was [POLL] Re: Et resurrexit tertia die.)

Let us let the VOTE and POLL threads run out. If we see a -1 on the change and agreement that we don't ship experimental code from the POLL, I will back out your disabled-default commit, fork 1.7.x to preserve all progress, and then unwind the appropriate commits to be back at 1.5 on the 1.6.x

Re: Backing out timedlock? (Was [POLL] Re: Et resurrexit tertia die.)

On Fri, 19 May 2017 13:28:02 -0500 William A Rowe Jr wrote: > No, it's dirt simple stupid to svn merge to revert each relevant Fair point. Let's do it, then make a 1.6.1 to twin with the existing APU tarball as RC. -- Nick Kew

Backing out timedlock? (Was [POLL] Re: Et resurrexit tertia die.)

No, it's dirt simple stupid to svn merge to revert each relevant patch, no typos necessary, and it turns out there were no added files on any platform. Therefore the oddball build schemas are untouched. Verifying the final delta between 1.5.x and 1.6.x proc_mutex.c and thread_mutex.c makes this