Make initBatchTracker private, move towards pipeline on batch

Make initBatchTracker private, move towards pipeline on batch

Committed: https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/5ac42ea8079c9368430971943192772984da5fce

[bsalomon, 2015-08-10 19:25:08]

bsalomon@google.com changed reviewers:
+ joshualitt@google.com

[bsalomon, 2015-08-10 19:29:34]

The CQ bit was checked by bsalomon@google.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-10 19:29:44]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1282893002/1
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1282893002/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-10 19:29:44]

Note for Reviewers:
The CQ is waiting for an approval.
If you believe that the CL is not ready yet, or if you would like to L-G-T-M
with comments then please uncheck the CQ checkbox.

Waiting for LGTM from valid reviewer(s) till 2015-08-11 01:29 UTC

[joshualitt, 2015-08-10 20:02:33]

On 2015/08/10 19:29:44, commit-bot: I haz the power wrote:
> Note for Reviewers:
> The CQ is waiting for an approval.
> If you believe that the CL is not ready yet, or if you would like to L-G-T-M
> with comments then please uncheck the CQ checkbox.
> 
> Waiting for LGTM from valid reviewer(s) till 2015-08-11 01:29 UTC

lgtm

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-10 20:03:54]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1) as
https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/5ac42ea8079c9368430971943192772984da5fce

[brucedawson, 2015-08-11 18:57:39]

brucedawson@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ brucedawson@chromium.org

[brucedawson, 2015-08-11 18:57:39]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1282893002/diff/1/src/gpu/GrReorderCommandBui...
File src/gpu/GrReorderCommandBuilder.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1282893002/diff/1/src/gpu/GrReorderCommandBui...
src/gpu/GrReorderCommandBuilder.cpp:27: int i = 0;
If this variable was declared on line 52 then it wouldn't be shadowed by the two
'i' declarations on lines 40 and 44.

This isn't a bug, but the large gap between the declaration of 'i' and its first
use is suboptimal for readability, so line 52 is definitely a better location.

I only noticed this because the newly added 'for' loops triggered two variable
shadowing warnings in /analyze. FWIW.