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

[Matt Mackall]

On Mon, 2015-04-13 at 22:44 -0700, Ryan McElroy wrote:
> 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).

It's just the plain English meaning with emphasis.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.