[merge][#109520] gc of LockableFiles should not warn or unlock

[Martin Pool]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Robert Collins
<robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 01:24 -0400, Alexander Belchenko wrote:
>  > Alexander Belchenko has voted approve.
>  > Status is now: Approved
>  > Comment:
>  > Should this be merged?
>
>  I'm hesitant to merge this; I would rather get the tests fixed using my
>  lower level stuff; and *if* that isn't sufficient then look at this
>  again.

As I said in the original post, it has a broader impact than just in
the test suite.  A number of bugs either complain about this happening
in particular cases, or the warning confuses the bug report.  When it
occurs in the field it does not seem very helpful in isolating the
bug.

Now that we have a deterministic check during the test suite there
seems even less reason to keep the gc warning.

I'm not sure what the metric would be for "sufficient".

(Robert said something about a long-running server possibly wanting to
debug leaked locks - I would think that there too it probably should
do something more like what the test suite does.)

-- 
Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/>