Re: [PATCH 4/9] run-command: add support for timeout in command finisher

> If a protocol builds its own way to declare "this backend is slow,
> so please do not consider less than 3 seconds of nonaction something
> to worry about but kill it off if you waited more than that" to make
> the receiving/waiting end responsible for managing timeout, that
> might be workable, but it certainly feels like a kludge.  The
> protocol can instead allow an "error - for your particular request,
> we couldn't come up with an answer within a reasonable time limit"
> response (in practice, "within time limit" does not have to be the
> only reason for such an error) to be returned, I think.