Rename ShadowRootType::OpenByDefault to ShadowRootType::V0.

Rename ShadowRootType::OpenByDefault to ShadowRootType::V0.

The main reason we should distinguish OpenByDefault and Open explicitly until now is that both are created by the same API, Element::createShadowRoot().

Now we have Element::createShadowRoot and Element::attachShadow.
The reason to have OpenByDefault and Open became weak.

Using V0 is better than continuing to use OpenByDefault.

In summary:

- V0: created by Element::createShadowRoot
- Open or Closed: created by Element::attachShadow

V0 is also widely used in the spec discussion.

BUG=531990
Committed: https://crrev.com/6f45e3adca41a86787188f5a0f87f0b157165e08
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#354460}

[hayato, 2015-10-16 05:03:50]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-16 05:04:20]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1407183002/1
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1407183002/1

[hayato, 2015-10-16 05:14:22]

hayato@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ kochi@chromium.org, kojii@chromium.org

[hayato, 2015-10-16 05:14:22]

PTAL

[kochi, 2015-10-16 05:36:51]

Hmm, I guess the main reason to keep the separate types
for 2 open shadow root is to determine the behavior of
distribution for <content> vs <slot>.

In that sense, I don't quite understand
"We don't need to distinguish OpenByDefault and Open strongly"
in the CL description, and start to wonder why you don't
merge the two, instead of renaming.

Could you give more clear reasoning why the name has to
be "V0" and why "Open" vs "OpenByDefault" is confusing?

I would put emphasis on that "ByDefault" suffix may make
wrong impression on readers that the mode is default,
but the mode is going be deprecated some time actually.

I'd like to avoid bikeshed to come up with better name so
"V0" is okay to me, but IMO the description should clearly
state what it is.

[hayato, 2015-10-16 05:49:09]

Thanks. I've updated the description.

[kochi, 2015-10-16 06:04:27]

On 2015/10/16 05:49:09, hayato wrote:
> Thanks. I've updated the description.

Thanks, looks much better now.
lgtm.

[hayato, 2015-10-16 06:05:20]

The CQ bit was checked by hayato@chromium.org

[hayato, 2015-10-16 06:05:21]

The CQ bit was unchecked by hayato@chromium.org

[hayato, 2015-10-16 06:05:29]

The CQ bit was checked by hayato@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-16 06:05:43]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1407183002/1
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1407183002/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-16 06:14:52]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-16 06:14:53]

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...)

[hayato, 2015-10-16 06:36:30]

hayato@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ tkent@chromium.org

[hayato, 2015-10-16 06:36:30]

Added tkent@ for reviewers for third_party/WebKit/Source/web/*.

[tkent, 2015-10-16 06:38:22]

The CQ bit was checked by tkent@chromium.org

[tkent, 2015-10-16 06:38:22]

lgtm

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-16 06:38:42]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1407183002/1
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1407183002/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-16 06:43:49]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-16 06:44:37]

Patchset 1 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/6f45e3adca41a86787188f5a0f87f0b157165e08
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#354460}