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

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.

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

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