Hi Julian Yes... trunk only... I don't think there will be an urgent request for backport... but I might be mistaken.
As far as the existing broken impl is concerned: I don't have a strong opinion here. We could remove it to give room for a proper implementation... some times it's easier to start over again than trying to stick to something that is broken. Having said that: maybe would be better than having dead code that is not used. Kind regards Angela On 05/04/17 15:51, "Julian Reschke" <[email protected]> wrote: >On 2017-04-05 15:34, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: >> hi Angela, >> >> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Angela Schreiber <[email protected]> >>wrote: >>> ...Does no reply mean that everyone agrees with the proposed steps? >>>:-)... >> >> I missed it but as an Oak user +1 to the below suggestion, it makes >> things clear ;-) >> ... > >I somehow missed it as well. > >That said, I agree that locking is broken, and making the proposed >change will at least surface any code that relies on locking. > >I assume you're considering this change for trunk only? And what do we >do with the existing incomplete implementation? Do you want to remove it >altogether? > >Best regards, Julian
