[d8] Remove "os" object from d8.

[d8] Remove "os" object from d8.

There is no user for it except for one (problematic) test case.
It's a nice example and all, but there is no point in having it.

R=jkummerow@chromium.org

[Yang, 2015-12-16 08:52:22]

Description was changed from

==========
[d8] Remove d8 OS extension.

There is no user for it except for one (problematic) test case.
It's a nice example and all, but there is no point in having it.

R=jkummerow@chromium.org
==========

to

==========
[d8] Remove "os" object from d8.

There is no user for it except for one (problematic) test case.
It's a nice example and all, but there is no point in having it.

R=jkummerow@chromium.org
==========

[Jakob Kummerow, 2015-12-16 09:38:17]

LGTM, but you might want to wait a little longer before landing this to give
people time to raise concerns if they have any.

[ofrobots, 2015-12-18 20:18:51]

On 2015/12/16 09:38:17, Jakob wrote:
> LGTM, but you might want to wait a little longer before landing this to give
> people time to raise concerns if they have any.

The tick-processor scripts do use os.system.

[Igor Sheludko, 2016-01-22 09:10:00]

On 2015/12/18 20:18:51, ofrobots wrote:
> On 2015/12/16 09:38:17, Jakob wrote:
> > LGTM, but you might want to wait a little longer before landing this to give
> > people time to raise concerns if they have any.
> 
> The tick-processor scripts do use os.system.

If you ever going to land this, please don't forget to revert this change as
well: https://codereview.chromium.org/1621523003/

[Yang, 2016-01-22 09:10:47]

On 2016/01/22 09:10:00, Igor Sheludko wrote:
> On 2015/12/18 20:18:51, ofrobots wrote:
> > On 2015/12/16 09:38:17, Jakob wrote:
> > > LGTM, but you might want to wait a little longer before landing this to
give
> > > people time to raise concerns if they have any.
> > 
> > The tick-processor scripts do use os.system.
> 
> If you ever going to land this, please don't forget to revert this change as
> well: https://codereview.chromium.org/1621523003/

Nope. Closing.