Pull requests
-------------

Unless the change is a trivial fix such as for a typo, it's generally best to
start by opening a new issue describing the bug or feature you're intending to
fix. Even if you think it's relatively minor, it's helpful to know what people
are working on. And as mentioned above, API changes should be discussed
thoroughly before moving to code.

@GwtCompatible
final class NaturalOrdering extends Ordering<Comparable<?>> implements Serializable {
  static final NaturalOrdering INSTANCE = new NaturalOrdering();

  // TODO: b/287198172 - Consider eagerly initializing these (but think about serialization).
  @LazyInit private transient @Nullable Ordering<@Nullable Comparable<?>> nullsFirst;
  @LazyInit private transient @Nullable Ordering<@Nullable Comparable<?>> nullsLast;

  @Override

      // It is possible due to races that we are currently in the expected state even though we
      // 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

          </excludePackageNames>
          <!-- Ignore some tags that are found in Java 11 sources but not recognized... under -source 8, I think it was? I can no longer reproduce the failure. -->
          <tags>
            <tag>
              <name>apiNote</name>
              <placement>X</placement>
            </tag>
            <tag>

      seenExceptionsLocal = newConcurrentHashSet();
      /*
       * Other handleException() callers may see this as soon as we publish it. We need to populate
       * it with the initial failure before we do, or else they may think that the initial failure
       * has never been seen before.
       */
      addInitialException(seenExceptionsLocal);

      ATOMIC_HELPER.compareAndSetSeenExceptions(this, null, seenExceptionsLocal);
      /*

   */
  /*
   * The new array contains nulls, even if the old array did not. If we wanted to be accurate, we
   * would declare a return type of `@Nullable T[]`. However, we've decided not to think too hard
   * about arrays for now, as they're a mess. (We previously discussed this in the review of
   * ObjectArrays, which is the main caller of this method.)
   */

      // It is possible due to races that we are currently in the expected state even though we
      // 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

      boolean isPossibleChainingCall = interfaceType.isAssignableFrom(method.getReturnType());
      try {
        Object actualReturnValue = method.invoke(wrapper, passedArgs);
        // If we think this might be a 'chaining' call then we allow the return value to either
        // be the wrapper or the returnValue.
        if (!isPossibleChainingCall || wrapper != actualReturnValue) {
          assertEquals(

   */
  /*
   * The new array contains nulls, even if the old array did not. If we wanted to be accurate, we
   * would declare a return type of `@Nullable T[]`. However, we've decided not to think too hard
   * about arrays for now, as they're a mess. (We previously discussed this in the review of
   * ObjectArrays, which is the main caller of this method.)
   */

       * doesn't need access to the futures again, so we can just pass `null`.
       *
       * TODO(b/112550045): Allocating a single, cheaper listener is (I think) only an optimization.
       * If we make some other optimizations, this one will no longer be necessary. The optimization
       * could actually hurt in some cases, as it forces us to keep all inputs in memory until the