Reorganize BRD code in new tools directory

Reorganize BRD code in new tools directory

Rename SkCodecTools.h to SkBitmapRegionDecoderPriv.h

Move BRD code to its own directory in tools.  This
allows us to not need to expose the entire tools
directory in Android.

BUG=skia:

Committed: https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/84a80652752976c9abe42d28e467c362baff3e39

[msarett, 2015-11-10 17:16:58]

msarett@google.com changed reviewers:
+ djsollen@google.com, scroggo@google.com

[djsollen, 2015-11-10 18:12:16]

can we make that any shorter?  The directory name seems overspecified.  What
happens if we need to add other android specific stuff for bitmapfactory?  Why
not just call it tools/codec?

[msarett, 2015-11-10 19:01:07]

On 2015/11/10 18:12:16, djsollen wrote:
> can we make that any shorter?  The directory name seems overspecified.  What
> happens if we need to add other android specific stuff for bitmapfactory?  Why
> not just call it tools/codec?

Happy to rename!

[scroggo, 2015-11-10 20:04:44]

On 2015/11/10 19:01:07, msarett wrote:
> On 2015/11/10 18:12:16, djsollen wrote:
> > can we make that any shorter?  The directory name seems overspecified.  What
> > happens if we need to add other android specific stuff for bitmapfactory? 
Why
> > not just call it tools/codec?
> 
> Happy to rename!

Maybe it should be tools/android instead? Either way lgtm

[msarett, 2015-11-10 20:11:05]

tools/android gets my vote.  I'll go ahead and change it and then submit.

[msarett, 2015-11-10 23:26:30]

The CQ bit was checked by msarett@google.com

[msarett, 2015-11-10 23:26:30]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from scroggo@google.com
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1417393004/#ps40001
(title: "tools/android")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-11-10 23:26:38]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-11-10 23:26:39]

This CL has an open dependency (Issue 1426943009 Patch 1). Please resolve the
dependency and try again.

[msarett, 2015-11-10 23:38:43]

The CQ bit was checked by msarett@google.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-11-10 23:38:52]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1417393004/40001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1417393004/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-11-10 23:49:49]

Committed patchset #3 (id:40001) as
https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/84a80652752976c9abe42d28e467c362baff3e39

[mtklein, 2015-11-10 23:51:33]

On 2015/11/10 at 20:11:05, msarett wrote:
> tools/android gets my vote.  I'll go ahead and change it and then submit.

Have you considered src/android?  tools/ is usually not-Skia stuff we use for
testing.  You must be having a weird time with GYP etc., no?

[msarett, 2015-11-11 14:09:43]

Yeah it's been strange.  I'm opened to moving this.  src/android seems like as
good of a place as any.

[djsollen, 2015-11-11 14:39:21]

On 2015/11/11 14:09:43, msarett wrote:
> Yeah it's been strange.  I'm opened to moving this.  src/android seems like as
> good of a place as any.

I wasn't present for the initial conversation on why the headers shouldn't be in
include, but I don't think that was the right call.  I think we should put the
headers in include/android and the cpp files in src/android.  If it makes it
clear we can add a readme to include/android stating that this if for
functionality required by the OS.  Any objections to that?

[scroggo, 2015-11-11 18:31:16]

On 2015/11/11 14:39:21, djsollen wrote:
> On 2015/11/11 14:09:43, msarett wrote:
> > Yeah it's been strange.  I'm opened to moving this.  src/android seems like
as
> > good of a place as any.
> 
> I wasn't present for the initial conversation on why the headers shouldn't be
in
> include, but I don't think that was the right call.  I think we should put the
> headers in include/android and the cpp files in src/android.  If it makes it
> clear we can add a readme to include/android stating that this if for
> functionality required by the OS.  Any objections to that?

sgtm

[mtklein, 2015-11-11 18:35:14]

On 2015/11/11 at 18:31:16, scroggo wrote:
> On 2015/11/11 14:39:21, djsollen wrote:
> > On 2015/11/11 14:09:43, msarett wrote:
> > > Yeah it's been strange.  I'm opened to moving this.  src/android seems
like as
> > > good of a place as any.
> > 
> > I wasn't present for the initial conversation on why the headers shouldn't
be in
> > include, but I don't think that was the right call.  I think we should put
the
> > headers in include/android and the cpp files in src/android.  If it makes it
> > clear we can add a readme to include/android stating that this if for
> > functionality required by the OS.  Any objections to that?
> 
> sgtm

Yeah, that's what I'd have expected too.

[msarett, 2015-11-11 18:36:14]

Will move again once I've finished with a few outstanding CLs.