while (!descendant.equals(ancestor)) {
      classes.add(descendant);
      descendant = descendant.getSuperclass();
    }

    return classes;
  }

  /**
   * Not really a signature -- just the parts that affect whether one method is a fauxveride of a
   * method from an ancestor class.
   *
   * <p>See JLS 8.4.2 for the definition of the related "override-equivalent."
   */

  `We called him Tortoise because he taught us,' said the Mock
Turtle angrily:  `really you are very dull!'

  `You ought to be ashamed of yourself for asking such a simple
question,' added the Gryphon; and then they both sat silent and
looked at poor Alice, who felt ready to sink into the earth.  At
last the Gryphon said to the Mock Turtle, `Drive on, old fellow!

      CopyOnWriteArraySet<Subscriber> currentSubscribers = subscribers.get(eventType);
      if (currentSubscribers == null || !currentSubscribers.removeAll(listenerMethodsForType)) {
        // if removeAll returns true, all we really know is that at least one subscriber was
        // removed... however, barring something very strange we can assume that if at least one
        // subscriber was removed, all subscribers on listener for that event type were... after

      /*
       * Since reflection can't tell the difference between <T> and <T extends Object>, it doesn't
       * make a ton of sense to have a separate tests for each. But having tests for each doesn't
       * really hurt anything, and maybe it will serve a purpose in a future in which Java has a
       * built-in nullness feature?
       */
      "ExtendsObject",
    })
    <T extends Object> void withObjectBound(List<T> list) {}

 * test with reference to the same "lock-like object", and then their interactions with that object
 * are choreographed via the various methods on this class.
 *
 * <p>A "lock-like object" is really any object that may be used for concurrency control. If the
 * {@link #callAndAssertBlocks} method is ever called in a test, the lock-like object must have a

            <multiplicity>*</multiplicity>
          </association>
          <comment><![CDATA[ This may be removed or relocated in the near
            future. It is undecided whether plugins really need a remote
            repository set of their own. ]]></comment>
        </field>
      </fields>
    </class>
    <class>
      <name>Activation</name>
      <version>1.0.0</version>

        ClassRealm projectRealm = currentProject.getClassRealm();
        if (projectRealm != null) {
            Thread.currentThread().setContextClassLoader(projectRealm);
        }
    }

    // TODO I'm really wondering where this method belongs; smells like it should be on MavenProject, but for some
    // reason it isn't ? This localization is kind-of a code smell.

    public static String getKey(MavenProject project) {

     * parameters, and as it turns out Firefox and Chrome actually do rather different things, and
     * both say in their comments that they're not really sure what the right approach is. We go
     * with Chrome's behavior (which also experimentally seems to match what IE does), but if you

     * extra state from AbstractFuture), our options are limited: A call to setException() would be
     * a no-op. We could log, but if that's what we really want, we should modify
     * AbstractFuture.executeListener to do so, since that method would have the ability to continue
     * to execute other listeners.
     *

### Check the code { #check-the-code }

* Check and read the code, see if it makes sense, **run it locally** and see if it actually solves the problem.

* Then **comment** saying that you did that, that's how I will know you really checked it.

/// info

Unfortunately, I can't simply trust PRs that just have several approvals.