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

[William A Rowe Jr]

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 lock
API, modulo any bug fix commits to that code.

That times out as my Monday morning, first thing.


On May 19, 2017 14:53, "Nick Kew"  wrote:

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

[Nick Kew]

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