Revert "chromeos: move screen lock handling to power manager client"

Revert "chromeos: move screen lock handling to power manager client"
    
This reverts commit f9f5f14c3ecf810409509b92a0b694850050e74e.

Revert "Move chromeos specific code to ChromeBrowserMainPartsChromeos"
    
This reverts commit 922cff9cd081e3ae327b52d3cc6bd8423307dee0.

Revert "chromeos: remove power manager EXPECTs from login_browsertest"
    
This reverts commit 0a9298b6333f5a373ddd316978f0aa469ef20ce7.



Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=112651

[kochi, 2011-12-02 02:49:17]

LGTM

please run trybot and make sure this compiles.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2011-12-02 04:33:10]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/sque@chromium.org/8774035/13

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2011-12-02 04:33:16]

Presubmit check for 8774035-13 failed and returned exit status 1.

Running presubmit commit checks ...

** Presubmit ERRORS **
Missing LGTM from an OWNER for:
chrome/browser/chromeos/dbus/power_manager_client.cc,chrome/browser/chromeos/dbus/power_manager_client.h,chrome/browser/chromeos/dbus/mock_power_manager_client.h

Presubmit checks took 1.7s to calculate.

Was the presubmit check useful? Please send feedback & hate mail to
maruel@chromium.org!

[satorux1, 2011-12-02 05:22:55]

LGTM so you can revert...

[kochi, 2011-12-02 06:34:55]

lgtm

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2011-12-02 06:35:07]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/sque@chromium.org/8774035/2004

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2011-12-02 07:53:17]

Change committed as 112651

[Nikita (slow), 2011-12-02 11:23:26]

Please don't forget to run linux_chromeos_clang trybot.

This change breaks linux_chromeos_clang buildbot
http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.chromiumos/builders/Linux%20Clang%20%28C...

[stevenjb, 2011-12-16 22:20:27]

Why was 922cff9cd081e3ae327b52d3cc6bd8423307dee0 reverted with these??? There is
no explanation here and I was not added as a reviewer. This re-factoring CL took
me about a week to land and it will probably take me at least a day to
re-introduce the cleanup work here.

[satorux1, 2011-12-16 23:01:35]

On 2011/12/16 22:20:27, stevenjb wrote:
> Why was 922cff9cd081e3ae327b52d3cc6bd8423307dee0 reverted with these??? There
is
> no explanation here and I was not added as a reviewer. This re-factoring CL
took
> me about a week to land and it will probably take me at least a day to
> re-introduce the cleanup work here.

Ugh, I wasn't aware that your patch was included in this when I sent L-G-T-M. I
thought he was only reverting  "chromeos: move screen lock handling to power
manager client" per the title. IIRC, the revert was needed to fix a regression,
but I don't know if it was necessary to revert your patch as well...

[satorux1, 2011-12-16 23:08:00]

On 2011/12/16 23:01:35, satorux1 wrote:
> On 2011/12/16 22:20:27, stevenjb wrote:
> > Why was 922cff9cd081e3ae327b52d3cc6bd8423307dee0 reverted with these???
There
> is
> > no explanation here and I was not added as a reviewer. This re-factoring CL
> took
> > me about a week to land and it will probably take me at least a day to
> > re-introduce the cleanup work here.
> 
> Ugh, I wasn't aware that your patch was included in this when I sent L-G-T-M.
I
> thought he was only reverting  "chromeos: move screen lock handling to power
> manager client" per the title. IIRC, the revert was needed to fix a
regression,
> but I don't know if it was necessary to revert your patch as well...

Per http://codereview.chromium.org/8664014/, the original patch broke the
linux_chromeos build. stevenjb's patch should be unrelated... Steven, I'm very
sorry about the horrible mess. I should've looked at this patch more carefully,
even though it looked like a simple revert...