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 or two in the first place, and it
> se
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 implementation in 1.6
>
> I won't complain if it's not released, but I'm not s
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] Release current svn _timedlock API implementation
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 vote, I suspect it has enjoyed 2/3 of the
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 scrutiny needed
to be c
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 the "best available rele
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()"...
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 issues.
IIUC (from latest Rainer's tests), t
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 vote (and an enhancement may be vetoed, AI
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 features.
Please vote, t
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 case
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 as soon as 1.6.1 tag is
[ ] 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.
13 matches
Mail list logo