Temporarily deactivate Start Menu shortcut move code in light of unresolved issues.

Temporarily deactivate Start Menu shortcut move code in light of unresolved issues.

(deactivates the triggering code from https://codereview.chromium.org/1289333005/)

BUG=548965, 548964

[gab, 2015-10-29 21:23:53]

gab@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ scottmg@chromium.org

[gab, 2015-10-29 21:23:53]

Scott PTAL, let's land this as a temporary healing pad until we figure it out. I
prefer this change doesn't go out to Dev until we fix those issues as this CL is
hard to undo (I'm fine not undoing on Canary -- uninstall/reinstall should fix
it worst case).

+grt/bcwhite FYI since you're gone for the day and I want to stop the
propagation of this issue ASAP.

[scottmg, 2015-10-29 21:26:17]

The CQ bit was checked by scottmg@chromium.org

[scottmg, 2015-10-29 21:26:18]

lgtm

rs-

[gab, 2015-10-29 21:26:56]

Description was changed from

==========
Temporarily deactivate Start Menu shortcut move code in light of unresolved
issues.

BUG=548965, 548964
==========

to

==========
Temporarily deactivate Start Menu shortcut move code in light of unresolved
issues.

(deactivates the triggering code from
https://codereview.chromium.org/1289333005/)

BUG=548965, 548964
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-29 21:27:51]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1410973006/1
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1410973006/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-29 22:01:40]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-29 22:01:41]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win_chromium_x64_rel_ng on tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_x64_...)

[gab, 2015-10-29 22:35:09]

The CQ bit was checked by gab@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-29 22:37:06]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1410973006/1
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1410973006/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-29 23:25:53]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-29 23:25:54]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win_chromium_rel_ng on tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_rel_...)
  win_chromium_x64_rel_ng on tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_x64_...)

[scottmg, 2015-10-29 23:40:01]

On 2015/10/29 23:25:54, commit-bot: I haz the power wrote:
> Try jobs failed on following builders:
>   win_chromium_rel_ng on tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_rel_...)
>   win_chromium_x64_rel_ng on tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_x64_...)

These look like related failures. Maybe we should go with a revert of the
original CL instead?

[gab, 2015-10-30 02:18:34]

On 2015/10/29 23:40:01, scottmg wrote:
> On 2015/10/29 23:25:54, commit-bot: I haz the power wrote:
> > Try jobs failed on following builders:
> >   win_chromium_rel_ng on tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
> >
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_rel_...)
> >   win_chromium_x64_rel_ng on tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
> >
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_x64_...)
> 
> These look like related failures. Maybe we should go with a revert of the
> original CL instead?

Yea, I guess that'll be easier than also marking the related tests as disabled,
etc. -- will be able to just keep going on a new patch set in
https://codereview.chromium.org/1289333005/

Will do that and close this one (sorry Brian..).

[gab, 2015-10-30 02:20:38]

On 2015/10/30 02:18:34, gab wrote:
> On 2015/10/29 23:40:01, scottmg wrote:
> > On 2015/10/29 23:25:54, commit-bot: I haz the power wrote:
> > > Try jobs failed on following builders:
> > >   win_chromium_rel_ng on tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
> > >
> >
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_rel_...)
> > >   win_chromium_x64_rel_ng on tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
> > >
> >
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_x64_...)
> > 
> > These look like related failures. Maybe we should go with a revert of the
> > original CL instead?
> 
> Yea, I guess that'll be easier than also marking the related tests as
disabled,
> etc. -- will be able to just keep going on a new patch set in
> https://codereview.chromium.org/1289333005/
> 
> Will do that and close this one (sorry Brian..).

Though actually the reason I was trying to avoid that is that I think in order
for uninstall/reinstall to work for people who already had the change, part of
that CL needs to be in.

[gab, 2015-10-30 02:22:45]

On 2015/10/30 02:20:38, gab wrote:
> On 2015/10/30 02:18:34, gab wrote:
> > On 2015/10/29 23:40:01, scottmg wrote:
> > > On 2015/10/29 23:25:54, commit-bot: I haz the power wrote:
> > > > Try jobs failed on following builders:
> > > >   win_chromium_rel_ng on tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_rel_...)
> > > >   win_chromium_x64_rel_ng on tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_x64_...)
> > > 
> > > These look like related failures. Maybe we should go with a revert of the
> > > original CL instead?
> > 
> > Yea, I guess that'll be easier than also marking the related tests as
> disabled,
> > etc. -- will be able to just keep going on a new patch set in
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/1289333005/
> > 
> > Will do that and close this one (sorry Brian..).
> 
> Though actually the reason I was trying to avoid that is that I think in order
> for uninstall/reinstall to work for people who already had the change, part of
> that CL needs to be in.

Actually, I take that back, uninstall should work without that CL per
SHORTCUT_LOCATION_START_MENU_ROOT being a ShortcutLocation prior to it and
uninstall just going through all known shortcut locations and removing any
shortcut that points to the uninstalled chrome.exe

[gab, 2015-10-30 02:24:38]

On 2015/10/30 02:22:45, gab wrote:
> On 2015/10/30 02:20:38, gab wrote:
> > On 2015/10/30 02:18:34, gab wrote:
> > > On 2015/10/29 23:40:01, scottmg wrote:
> > > > On 2015/10/29 23:25:54, commit-bot: I haz the power wrote:
> > > > > Try jobs failed on following builders:
> > > > >   win_chromium_rel_ng on tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_rel_...)
> > > > >   win_chromium_x64_rel_ng on tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_x64_...)
> > > > 
> > > > These look like related failures. Maybe we should go with a revert of
the
> > > > original CL instead?
> > > 
> > > Yea, I guess that'll be easier than also marking the related tests as
> > disabled,
> > > etc. -- will be able to just keep going on a new patch set in
> > > https://codereview.chromium.org/1289333005/
> > > 
> > > Will do that and close this one (sorry Brian..).
> > 
> > Though actually the reason I was trying to avoid that is that I think in
order
> > for uninstall/reinstall to work for people who already had the change, part
of
> > that CL needs to be in.
> 
> Actually, I take that back, uninstall should work without that CL per
> SHORTCUT_LOCATION_START_MENU_ROOT being a ShortcutLocation prior to it and
> uninstall just going through all known shortcut locations and removing any
> shortcut that points to the uninstalled chrome.exe

Revert up @ https://codereview.chromium.org/1405993006/, closing this one.

[bcwhite, 2015-10-30 02:25:57]

Yeah, that's good.  I'll revive the patch on my workstation and make sure that
it doesn't cause the same problem before submitting it again.