[PATCH 1 of 2 V2] wlock: only issue devel warning when actually acquiring the lock

[Ryan McElroy]

On 4/13/2015 8:57 PM, Martin von Zweigbergk wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 8:46 PM Ryan McElroy <rm at fb.com 
> <mailto:rm at fb.com>> wrote:
>
>     A meta-point/question: I often find it would be useful to see how
>     a test
>     behaved *before* a fix. What does the community think about a
>     patch that
>     introduces a test that shows a failure, followed by a patch that fixes
>     the code and shows how the behavior is now fixed and better than
>     before?
>     I might start doing this in my patches...
>
>
> I brought this up here:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.mercurial.devel/75747/focus=75752 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.mercurial.devel/75747/focus%3D75752&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=zxRJZ6melt%2FqLtQ%2Bw2Gaeg%3D%3D%0A&m=B131xN7YhmkKP95EdF%2BNyUjre%2FhGNHb29T2yr6YWix0%3D%0A&s=584ec665a1465e012048c5c3b794529b2a14e2286e8ddac850a92a61c1587ffd>
>
> I haven't taken the time to add that syntax to the test runner yet.
Yeah, we're on the same page. I don't think we even need to mark 
something as BROKEN if it's fixed in the next patch... It's just 
documenting the old and new behavior. I'm not even totally aware of what 
BROKEN means or implies (but I'd like to learn).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20150413/20ade8fe/attachment.html>