// timed out. e.g. if we weren't event able to grab the lock within the timeout we would never
      // even check the guard. I don't think we care too much about this use case but it could lead
      // to a confusing error message.
      throw new TimeoutException("Timed out waiting for " + this + " to reach the RUNNING state.");
    }
  }

  @Override
  public final void awaitTerminated() {

      // timed out. e.g. if we weren't event able to grab the lock within the timeout we would never
      // even check the guard. I don't think we care too much about this use case but it could lead
      // to a confusing error message.
      throw new TimeoutException("Timed out waiting for " + this + " to reach the RUNNING state.");
    }
  }

  @Override
  public final void awaitTerminated() {

 *   <li>Convert between specific preset values using {@link
 *       com.google.common.collect.Maps#asConverter Maps.asConverter}. For example, use this to
 *       create a "fake" converter for a unit test. It is unnecessary (and confusing) to <i>mock</i>
 *       the {@code Converter} type using a mocking framework.
 *   <li>Pass two lambda expressions or method references to the {@link #from from} factory method.

It will have a property `scopes` with a list containing all the scopes required by itself and all the dependencies that use this as a sub-dependency. That means, all the "dependants"... this might sound confusing, it is explained again later below.

The `security_scopes` object (of class `SecurityScopes`) also provides a `scope_str` attribute with a single string, containing those scopes separated by spaces (we are going to use it).

        }
        message += " ";
      }
      if (shouldShowExtraNanos) {
        message += overWaitLeftoverNanos + " nanoseconds ";
      }

      message += "delay)";
    }
    // It's confusing to see a completed future in a timeout message; if isDone() returns false,
    // then we know it must have given a pending toString value earlier. If not, then the future

        }
        message += " ";
      }
      if (shouldShowExtraNanos) {
        message += overWaitLeftoverNanos + " nanoseconds ";
      }

      message += "delay)";
    }
    // It's confusing to see a completed future in a timeout message; if isDone() returns false,
    // then we know it must have given a pending toString value earlier. If not, then the future

 * socket that could receive both IPv4 and IPv6 connections (by disabling the {@code IPV6_V6ONLY}
 * socket option on an IPv6 socket). Yes, it's confusing. Nevertheless, these "mapped" addresses
 * were never supposed to be seen on the wire. That assumption was dropped, some say mistakenly, in
 * later RFCs with the apparent aim of making IPv4-to-IPv6 transition simpler.
 *

    print('WARNING: The NDK version in %s is %s, which is not '
          'supported by Bazel (officially supported versions: %s). Please use '
          'another version. Compiling Android targets may result in confusing '
          'errors.\n' %
          (android_ndk_home_path, ndk_version, _SUPPORTED_ANDROID_NDK_VERSIONS))
  write_action_env_to_bazelrc('ANDROID_NDK_VERSION', ndk_version)

 * socket that could receive both IPv4 and IPv6 connections (by disabling the {@code IPV6_V6ONLY}
 * socket option on an IPv6 socket). Yes, it's confusing. Nevertheless, these "mapped" addresses
 * were never supposed to be seen on the wire. That assumption was dropped, some say mistakenly, in
 * later RFCs with the apparent aim of making IPv4-to-IPv6 transition simpler.
 *

  // could find them in the code review archives), but here are a few:
  //
  // 1. What about leaving/unlocking? Are you going to do
  //    guard.enter() paired with monitor.leave()? That might get
  //    confusing. It's nice for the finally block to look as close as
  //    possible to the thing right before the try. You could have
  //    guard.leave(), but that's a little odd as well because the