Prepare for VS2015 toolchain

Prepare for VS2015 toolchain

This is not intended to change anything for current VS2013 users.

The 2015 code here will not work until a change in depot_tools side
lands. (It might not work after that either, but this is
the first step in getting a 2015 fyi bot up.)

R=dpranke@chromium.org
BUG=492774
Committed: https://crrev.com/54e450611852fcf8cb120f73b381a50768212415
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#332296}

[Dirk Pranke, 2015-06-01 22:28:14]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1163723003/diff/60001/build/vs_toolchain.py
File build/vs_toolchain.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1163723003/diff/60001/build/vs_toolchain.py#n...
build/vs_toolchain.py:105: dll = dll_pattern % which
I've never seen 'which' used as an iterator variable name before ...

I don't particularly have a better suggestion in mind, though :).

https://codereview.chromium.org/1163723003/diff/60001/build/vs_toolchain.py#n...
build/vs_toolchain.py:192: return ['89341a333306b216e0121fcf2495d04ccbb8c4fc']
why are you doing this rather than just checking in two different hashes?

[scottmg, 2015-06-01 22:35:57]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1163723003/diff/60001/build/vs_toolchain.py
File build/vs_toolchain.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1163723003/diff/60001/build/vs_toolchain.py#n...
build/vs_toolchain.py:105: dll = dll_pattern % which
On 2015/06/01 22:28:14, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> I've never seen 'which' used as an iterator variable name before ...
> 
> I don't particularly have a better suggestion in mind, though :).

file_part? Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1163723003/diff/60001/build/vs_toolchain.py#n...
build/vs_toolchain.py:192: return ['89341a333306b216e0121fcf2495d04ccbb8c4fc']
On 2015/06/01 22:28:14, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> why are you doing this rather than just checking in two different hashes?

No great reason, mostly just that it's a temporary hack and when we actually
switch I'll delete this code and change the contents of the "current hash" file.

(I could add code to check/load a specific file based on version, but that seems
like more code and indirection for not much payoff.)

[Dirk Pranke, 2015-06-01 22:43:26]

lgtm w/ some reluctance (I"d probably vote for version-specific files, but I
don't feel strongly enough about it to really push for it).

https://codereview.chromium.org/1163723003/diff/60001/build/vs_toolchain.py
File build/vs_toolchain.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1163723003/diff/60001/build/vs_toolchain.py#n...
build/vs_toolchain.py:192: return ['89341a333306b216e0121fcf2495d04ccbb8c4fc']
On 2015/06/01 22:35:57, scottmg wrote:
> On 2015/06/01 22:28:14, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> > why are you doing this rather than just checking in two different hashes?
> 
> No great reason, mostly just that it's a temporary hack and when we actually
> switch I'll delete this code and change the contents of the "current hash"
file.
> 
> (I could add code to check/load a specific file based on version, but that
seems
> like more code and indirection for not much payoff.)

It seems like the payoff would be less mystery and more consistency, but I can
understand your reluctance to do more work than you think you would need to do. 

One could perhaps argue that both hashes should just live in this file, so at
least they'd be in the same place. It feels odd to have two different locations.

If we thought there was a world where we'd be supporting versions side-by-side
for some time (depending on the bot, or user choice, or something), multiple
files seems like it would clearly be the way to go.

[scottmg, 2015-06-01 22:48:28]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1163723003/diff/60001/build/vs_toolchain.py
File build/vs_toolchain.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1163723003/diff/60001/build/vs_toolchain.py#n...
build/vs_toolchain.py:192: return ['89341a333306b216e0121fcf2495d04ccbb8c4fc']
On 2015/06/01 22:43:26, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> On 2015/06/01 22:35:57, scottmg wrote:
> > On 2015/06/01 22:28:14, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> > > why are you doing this rather than just checking in two different hashes?
> > 
> > No great reason, mostly just that it's a temporary hack and when we actually
> > switch I'll delete this code and change the contents of the "current hash"
> file.
> > 
> > (I could add code to check/load a specific file based on version, but that
> seems
> > like more code and indirection for not much payoff.)
> 
> It seems like the payoff would be less mystery and more consistency, but I can
> understand your reluctance to do more work than you think you would need to
do. 
> 
> One could perhaps argue that both hashes should just live in this file, so at
> least they'd be in the same place. It feels odd to have two different
locations.
> 
> If we thought there was a world where we'd be supporting versions side-by-side
> for some time (depending on the bot, or user choice, or something), multiple
> files seems like it would clearly be the way to go.

Yeah, you're right. The only reason I can recall that it was separate was to put
the hash in the buildtools repo, but we never accomplished that anyway. Moved
both here.

[scottmg, 2015-06-01 22:49:18]

The CQ bit was checked by scottmg@chromium.org

[scottmg, 2015-06-01 22:49:19]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from dpranke@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1163723003/#ps100001
(title: "move both hashes inline")

[Dirk Pranke, 2015-06-01 22:53:55]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1163723003/diff/100001/build/vs_toolchain.py
File build/vs_toolchain.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1163723003/diff/100001/build/vs_toolchain.py#...
build/vs_toolchain.py:199: return f.read().strip().splitlines()
presumably you should delete lines 197-199, yes?

[scottmg, 2015-06-01 22:55:07]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1163723003/diff/100001/build/vs_toolchain.py
File build/vs_toolchain.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1163723003/diff/100001/build/vs_toolchain.py#...
build/vs_toolchain.py:199: return f.read().strip().splitlines()
On 2015/06/01 22:53:54, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> presumably you should delete lines 197-199, yes?

Doh! Thanks.

[scottmg, 2015-06-01 22:56:17]

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

[scottmg, 2015-06-01 22:56:18]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from dpranke@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1163723003/#ps120001
(title: "delete dead code")

[scottmg, 2015-06-01 23:01:41]

The CQ bit was unchecked by scottmg@chromium.org

[scottmg, 2015-06-01 23:01:48]

The CQ bit was checked by scottmg@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-01 23:37:17]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1163723003/120001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-02 01:15:50]

Committed patchset #7 (id:120001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-02 01:16:51]

Patchset 7 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/54e450611852fcf8cb120f73b381a50768212415
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#332296}