On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 08:11 -0500, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > Maybe we should reconsider the whole idea of timedlocks?? > > Without throwing them out wholesale, in the interest of other 1.6.0 > enhancements, is it reasonable to keep developing this on 2.0-dev > trunk, and back it out entirely from 1.6.x branch for now?
Howbout a --with-experimental-timedlocks config option ? > (Not sure > if forking 1.7.x from 1.6.x and then backing out from 1.6.x is the > simplest way to make that happen, but guessing it is.) Please, no 1.7 until 1.6-release is out of the door! We can then decide whether a 1.7 is needed, or whether the future can be 2.0 and bugfixes. -- Nick Kew