Getting rid of duplicate includes from media/

Getting rid of duplicate includes from media/

As any includes present in the related header do not need to be included again in the related cc (i.e., foo.cc can rely on foo.h's includes).

This removes all includes from $X.cc files where the $X.h has the same include to confirm to the style guide.

BUG=460988
Committed: https://crrev.com/19bf2cea5af3e4e4c499a41a90a6603d911616e5
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#329923}

[anujsharma, 2015-05-13 07:16:45]

anujk.sharma@samsung.com changed reviewers:
+ xhwang@chromium.org

[anujsharma, 2015-05-13 07:16:46]

Hi Xhwang,

As per the C++ style guide, if a .h includes something, the .cc can rely on it.
So, in this CL, i am simply removing the duplicate includes from complete media/
module. I have checked all the builds just to ensure it should not break
anything.

What do you think about this CL?

PTAL


Thanks a lot!!

Regards,
Anuj

[xhwang, 2015-05-14 04:57:40]

xhwang@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ dalecurtis@chromium.org

[xhwang, 2015-05-14 05:02:37]

+dalecurtis

Is this CL generated by the script attached in the bug?

I can see the point and this is compliant with the style guide. But the style
guide says "do not need to be included", not "must not be included" :) So I
guess this is optional. Maybe I am a bit old fashioned. I feel in some cases the
old way makes more sense.

Dale: WDYT?

[anujsharma, 2015-05-14 07:52:00]

On 2015/05/14 05:02:37, xhwang wrote:
> +dalecurtis
> 
> Is this CL generated by the script attached in the bug?
> 
> I can see the point and this is compliant with the style guide. But the style
> guide says "do not need to be included", not "must not be included" :) So I
> guess this is optional. Maybe I am a bit old fashioned. I feel in some cases
the
> old way makes more sense.
> 
> Dale: WDYT?

Thanks xhwang for your time.

Yes, i have used the script attached in the bug and also checked some mechanical
changes.

Maybe We can wait for more suggestions from dalecurtis :)

[DaleCurtis, 2015-05-14 16:24:47]

I think if we're applying this to all of Chromium, it's fine to do in media too.
It seems unlikely to have any benefit but as a style improvement. It's also in a
location which is unlikely to affect blame readability... so lgtm.

I wish this script did the opposite though: Find headers in the .h file which
don't need to be there and move them to the .cc file when a forward declaration
can be used.

[anujsharma, 2015-05-14 19:30:58]

On 2015/05/14 16:24:47, DaleCurtis wrote:
> I think if we're applying this to all of Chromium, it's fine to do in media
too.
> It seems unlikely to have any benefit but as a style improvement. It's also in
a
> location which is unlikely to affect blame readability... so lgtm.
> 
> I wish this script did the opposite though: Find headers in the .h file which
> don't need to be there and move them to the .cc file when a forward
declaration
> can be used.

Thanks Dalecurtis for lgtm and supporting this CL.

I will try to check for opposite change as well.

[anujsharma, 2015-05-14 19:32:24]

@xhwang

Dalecurtis looks ok with the change.

Could you please also give thumbs up to this CL.

Thanks!

[xhwang, 2015-05-14 19:36:24]

Sure. LGTM!

[anujsharma, 2015-05-14 19:45:32]

On 2015/05/14 19:36:24, xhwang wrote:
> Sure. LGTM!

Thanks xhwang for lgtm :)

[anujsharma, 2015-05-14 19:45:49]

The CQ bit was checked by anujk.sharma@samsung.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-05-14 19:48:26]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1133363002/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-05-14 20:41:17]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-05-14 20:42:06]

Patchset 1 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/19bf2cea5af3e4e4c499a41a90a6603d911616e5
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#329923}