[RFC] Proof-of-Concept suggesting correct remote break-lock url (bug #250451)

[Andrew Bennetts]

Wouter van Heyst wrote:
[...]
>  * it requires a new protocol version

FWIW, It doesn't require a new protocol version if I'm skimming this
correctly — it's true that old clients will give an ugly “Unexpected error
from server” message if they get a LockWait error, but I think that's
tolerable.  It's not like the existing behaviour is great either...

If that isn't tolerable we can add newer versions of the *.lock_write verbs,
and only transmit LockWait for those.

-Andrew.