Add gsutil 4.13 to telemetry/third_party

Add gsutil 4.13 to telemetry/third_party

BUG=508721
R=aiolos@chromium.org, pdr@chromium.org

Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/d23516467f91b41fa5197b51bdc5aa00dea66c99

[nednguyen, 2015-07-28 21:55:49]

nednguyen@google.com changed reviewers:
+ aiolos@chromium.org, pdr@chromium.org

[pdr., 2015-07-28 22:11:48]

On 2015/07/28 at 21:56:19, nednguyen wrote:
> 

It looks like the bot has issues applying this. I had issues locally as well.

If Kari gives this the okay, I recommend dcommitting the added files then
uploading this patch with just the cloud_storage.py changes.

[aiolos (Not reviewing), 2015-07-28 22:38:19]

On 2015/07/28 22:11:48, pdr wrote:
> On 2015/07/28 at 21:56:19, nednguyen wrote:
> > 
> 
> It looks like the bot has issues applying this. I had issues locally as well.
> 
> If Kari gives this the okay, I recommend dcommitting the added files then
> uploading this patch with just the cloud_storage.py changes.

That should be fine.

[nednguyen, 2015-07-29 16:57:04]

On 2015/07/28 22:38:19, aiolos wrote:
> On 2015/07/28 22:11:48, pdr wrote:
> > On 2015/07/28 at 21:56:19, nednguyen wrote:
> > > 
> > 
> > It looks like the bot has issues applying this. I had issues locally as
well.
> > 
> > If Kari gives this the okay, I recommend dcommitting the added files then
> > uploading this patch with just the cloud_storage.py changes.
> 
> That should be fine.

Done. After you all stamp this, I will dcommit the change

[pdr., 2015-07-29 17:07:19]

On 2015/07/29 at 16:57:04, nednguyen wrote:
> On 2015/07/28 22:38:19, aiolos wrote:
> > On 2015/07/28 22:11:48, pdr wrote:
> > > On 2015/07/28 at 21:56:19, nednguyen wrote:
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > It looks like the bot has issues applying this. I had issues locally as
well.
> > > 
> > > If Kari gives this the okay, I recommend dcommitting the added files then
> > > uploading this patch with just the cloud_storage.py changes.
> > 
> > That should be fine.
> 
> Done. After you all stamp this, I will dcommit the change

LGTM

[aiolos (Not reviewing), 2015-07-29 17:30:23]

lgtm

[nednguyen, 2015-07-29 17:51:27]

Committed patchset #3 (id:20001) manually as
d23516467f91b41fa5197b51bdc5aa00dea66c99.

[mmenke, 2015-07-29 19:13:34]

On 2015/07/29 17:51:27, nednguyen wrote:
> Committed patchset #3 (id:20001) manually as
> d23516467f91b41fa5197b51bdc5aa00dea66c99.

This CL broke checkperms.  Please run even trivial CLs through the trybots.

[pdr., 2015-07-29 19:43:22]

On 2015/07/29 at 19:13:34, mmenke wrote:
> On 2015/07/29 17:51:27, nednguyen wrote:
> > Committed patchset #3 (id:20001) manually as
> > d23516467f91b41fa5197b51bdc5aa00dea66c99.
> 
> This CL broke checkperms.  Please run even trivial CLs through the trybots.

Sadly, it was not possible to use the trybots or cq for this change due to the
patch size.

[jam, 2015-07-29 20:08:29]

On 2015/07/29 19:43:22, pdr wrote:
> On 2015/07/29 at 19:13:34, mmenke wrote:
> > On 2015/07/29 17:51:27, nednguyen wrote:
> > > Committed patchset #3 (id:20001) manually as
> > > d23516467f91b41fa5197b51bdc5aa00dea66c99.
> > 
> > This CL broke checkperms.  Please run even trivial CLs through the trybots.
> 
> Sadly, it was not possible to use the trybots or cq for this change due to the
> patch size.

1) what error was given when you tried to run try job or CQ?
2) has this been reverted?

[pdr., 2015-07-29 20:11:54]

On 2015/07/29 at 20:08:29, jam wrote:
> On 2015/07/29 19:43:22, pdr wrote:
> > On 2015/07/29 at 19:13:34, mmenke wrote:
> > > On 2015/07/29 17:51:27, nednguyen wrote:
> > > > Committed patchset #3 (id:20001) manually as
> > > > d23516467f91b41fa5197b51bdc5aa00dea66c99.
> > > 
> > > This CL broke checkperms.  Please run even trivial CLs through the
trybots.
> > 
> > Sadly, it was not possible to use the trybots or cq for this change due to
the
> > patch size.
> 
> 1) what error was given when you tried to run try job or CQ?

The error is due to known issues with rietveld and patches containing binary
data.

> 2) has this been reverted?

Not to my knowledge. @nednguyen, can you please revert and re-land once the
checkperms issues have been fixed?

[chromium-reviews, 2015-07-29 20:14:04]

The revert is already in https://codereview.chromium.org/1260493004/

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 1:11 PM <pdr@chromium.org> wrote:

> On 2015/07/29 at 20:08:29, jam wrote:
> > On 2015/07/29 19:43:22, pdr wrote:
> > > On 2015/07/29 at 19:13:34, mmenke wrote:
> > > > On 2015/07/29 17:51:27, nednguyen wrote:
> > > > > Committed patchset #3 (id:20001) manually as
> > > > > d23516467f91b41fa5197b51bdc5aa00dea66c99.
> > > >
> > > > This CL broke checkperms.  Please run even trivial CLs through the
> trybots.
> > >
> > > Sadly, it was not possible to use the trybots or cq for this change due
> > to
> the
> > > patch size.
>
> > 1) what error was given when you tried to run try job or CQ?
>
> The error is due to known issues with rietveld and patches containing
> binary
> data.
>
> > 2) has this been reverted?
>
> Not to my knowledge. @nednguyen, can you please revert and re-land once the
> checkperms issues have been fixed?
>
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/1258583006/
>

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

[jam, 2015-07-29 20:51:20]

On 2015/07/29 20:11:54, pdr wrote:
> On 2015/07/29 at 20:08:29, jam wrote:
> > On 2015/07/29 19:43:22, pdr wrote:
> > > On 2015/07/29 at 19:13:34, mmenke wrote:
> > > > On 2015/07/29 17:51:27, nednguyen wrote:
> > > > > Committed patchset #3 (id:20001) manually as
> > > > > d23516467f91b41fa5197b51bdc5aa00dea66c99.
> > > > 
> > > > This CL broke checkperms.  Please run even trivial CLs through the
> trybots.
> > > 
> > > Sadly, it was not possible to use the trybots or cq for this change due to
> the
> > > patch size.
> > 
> > 1) what error was given when you tried to run try job or CQ?
> 
> The error is due to known issues with rietveld and patches containing binary
> data.

The solution to this is to manually land the bare minimum (i.e. the binary
files), and then upload the rest in a patch which could be sent to try jobs.
Since this issue occurred, this workaround is obviously not well documented :(

> 
> > 2) has this been reverted?
> 
> Not to my knowledge. @nednguyen, can you please revert and re-land once the
> checkperms issues have been fixed?