Switch jsoncpp to be single DEPS entry

Switch jsoncpp to be single DEPS entry

This change should be a no-op as it keeps the DEPS'd revision
the same.  Rather than DEPSing it two sub-repos it simply
includes the since top level repo.

Once this change is in we can switch to using a github mirror
rather than an SVN mirror. Once that its done we can look
at rollin the DEPSs forward.

Also, include a temporary exclusion in checklicenses.py
to cover some .py files in the jsoncpp source that do
not contain a license.

BUG=472809
Committed: https://crrev.com/56955777bbe2365d8e176e8cf72e14ee493b61bd
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#324061}

[Sam Clegg, 2015-04-01 22:48:44]

sbc@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ phajdan.jr@chromium.org, ronghuawu@google.com

[Sam Clegg, 2015-04-02 01:07:31]

Since it is only the .py files jsoncpp, I thought it might be useful to allow
license check exceptions using fnmatch thus allowing the (temporary) whitelists
to be tighter.

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2015-04-02 09:58:24]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1054753002/diff/40001/tools/checklicenses/che...
File tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1054753002/diff/40001/tools/checklicenses/che...
tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py:9: import fnmatch
PLease do not add fnmatch support to checklicenses. Just exclude entire
directory if needed.

[Sam Clegg, 2015-04-02 15:43:03]

On 2015/04/02 09:58:24, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1054753002/diff/40001/tools/checklicenses/che...
> File tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1054753002/diff/40001/tools/checklicenses/che...
> tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py:9: import fnmatch
> PLease do not add fnmatch support to checklicenses. Just exclude entire
> directory if needed.

Just curious, why don't you like this approach?  It allows the whitelist to be
far more precise, no?

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2015-04-02 16:33:46]

On 2015/04/02 at 15:43:03, sbc wrote:
> On 2015/04/02 09:58:24, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
> >
https://codereview.chromium.org/1054753002/diff/40001/tools/checklicenses/che...
> > File tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py (right):
> > 
> >
https://codereview.chromium.org/1054753002/diff/40001/tools/checklicenses/che...
> > tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py:9: import fnmatch
> > PLease do not add fnmatch support to checklicenses. Just exclude entire
> > directory if needed.
> 
> Just curious, why don't you like this approach?  It allows the whitelist to be
far more precise, no?

I don't like this tradeoff between complexity of checklicenses.py and how
"tight" the whitelist is. Even if one file doesn't have the headers, it's still
an issue. There isn't much difference between 1 file without headers and 100.
When upstream roll needs to be performed, you'd have to expand the whitelist
anyway. This script was not intended to block rolls, just to flag issues so we
can ask upstreams to add license headers.

[Sam Clegg, 2015-04-02 16:53:22]

On 2015/04/02 16:33:46, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
> On 2015/04/02 at 15:43:03, sbc wrote:
> > On 2015/04/02 09:58:24, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
> > >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1054753002/diff/40001/tools/checklicenses/che...
> > > File tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py (right):
> > > 
> > >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1054753002/diff/40001/tools/checklicenses/che...
> > > tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py:9: import fnmatch
> > > PLease do not add fnmatch support to checklicenses. Just exclude entire
> > > directory if needed.
> > 
> > Just curious, why don't you like this approach?  It allows the whitelist to
be
> far more precise, no?
> 
> I don't like this tradeoff between complexity of checklicenses.py and how
> "tight" the whitelist is. Even if one file doesn't have the headers, it's
still
> an issue. There isn't much difference between 1 file without headers and 100.
> When upstream roll needs to be performed, you'd have to expand the whitelist
> anyway. This script was not intended to block rolls, just to flag issues so we
> can ask upstreams to add license headers.

OK. Fair enough.  Reverted to previous version. PTAL.

[Sam Clegg, 2015-04-02 16:55:06]

The CQ bit was checked by sbc@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-02 16:55:39]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1054753002/60001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-02 17:02:41]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1054753002/60001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-02 17:14:55]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-02 17:14:55]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  chromium_presubmit on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/chromium_presub...)

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2015-04-03 10:20:25]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1054753002/diff/60001/tools/checklicenses/che...
File tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1054753002/diff/60001/tools/checklicenses/che...
tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py:213: 'third_party/jsoncp/source': [ #
http://crbug.com/472816
1. Looks like there is a typo here (jsoncp instead of jsoncpp). Is this
suppression needed/used?

2. Is there an _upstream_ bug filed about lack of license headers? If not please
file one and use it here instead.

[Sam Clegg, 2015-04-06 20:42:12]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1054753002/diff/60001/tools/checklicenses/che...
File tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1054753002/diff/60001/tools/checklicenses/che...
tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py:213: 'third_party/jsoncp/source': [ #
http://crbug.com/472816
On 2015/04/03 10:20:24, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
> 1. Looks like there is a typo here (jsoncp instead of jsoncpp). Is this
> suppression needed/used?

It is needed, but only for py files (i misspelled it locally while testing..
sorry about that).

> 
> 2. Is there an _upstream_ bug filed about lack of license headers? If not
please
> file one and use it here instead.


Done.

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2015-04-07 13:00:08]

LGTM

[Sam Clegg, 2015-04-07 16:09:37]

The CQ bit was checked by sbc@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-07 16:10:10]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1054753002/80001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-07 17:06:21]

Committed patchset #5 (id:80001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-07 17:07:16]

Patchset 5 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/56955777bbe2365d8e176e8cf72e14ee493b61bd
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#324061}