On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 9:17 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Nick Kew <n...@apache.org> wrote: >> 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 ? > > +1 > > although anyone toggling an -experimental flag is expected > to understand their resulting apr breaks binary compatibility.
Or... do we stub them in all as APR_ENOTIMPL if the experimental flag is not given?
