Flag for the desktop user menu revamp project

Creates a flag to be used for the desktop user menu revamp project.
Testing was done on the chrome://flags page as well as to use switches::IsRedesignedDesktopUserMenu().

BUG=615893
Committed: https://crrev.com/5601bd63e3623961b7afc85e8cb2e77d60d0c694
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#397395}

[Jane, 2016-06-01 20:04:17]

Description was changed from

==========
Flag for the desktop user menu revamp project

BUG=615893
==========

to

==========
Creates a flag to be used for the desktop user menu revamp project.
Testing was done on the chrome://flags page as well as to use
switches::UsePasswordSeparatedSigninFlow().

BUG=615893
==========

[Jane, 2016-06-01 20:08:57]

janeliulwq@google.com changed reviewers:
+ anthonyvd@chromium.org, ewald@chromium.org, rogerta@chromium.org

[Jane, 2016-06-01 20:08:57]

janeliulwq@google.com changed required reviewers:
+ anthonyvd@chromium.org

[Jane, 2016-06-01 20:08:57]

As per our discussion, I created a flag to be used in my project. Please review
the naming, description, etc. as well as if I missed anything.
Btw, do I need any owner review for this?
Thanks!
-Jane

[Roger Tawa OOO till Jul 10th, 2016-06-01 20:40:14]

lgtm

This needs to done behind a flag... OK, I wasn't really thinking about that. 
Will make the code a little more complicated.  I don't think you need more
reviewers, you can use the CQ dry run to check.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2031763002/diff/1/chrome/app/generated_resour...
File chrome/app/generated_resources.grd (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2031763002/diff/1/chrome/app/generated_resour...
chrome/app/generated_resources.grd:13310: +        Switch to the redesigned user
menu
Nit: maybe say "Use redesigned user menu"

[Jane, 2016-06-01 20:46:39]

On 2016/06/01 20:40:14, Roger Tawa wrote:
> lgtm
> 
> This needs to done behind a flag... OK, I wasn't really thinking about that. 
> Will make the code a little more complicated.  I don't think you need more
> reviewers, you can use the CQ dry run to check.
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2031763002/diff/1/chrome/app/generated_resour...
> File chrome/app/generated_resources.grd (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2031763002/diff/1/chrome/app/generated_resour...
> chrome/app/generated_resources.grd:13310: +        Switch to the redesigned
user
> menu
> Nit: maybe say "Use redesigned user menu"

Thanks for the comment, I changed it per your suggestion.
I realized that you are one of the owners so thanks for the LGTM!

[anthonyvd, 2016-06-01 20:48:08]

On 2016/06/01 at 20:40:14, rogerta wrote:

lgtm % minor nit: We tend to stay away from qualifiers like "new" and
"redesigned" in code because they're not the most descriptive long-term and for
someone not working on the team. Is there something more descriptive we can use?
I have to admit, I can't really think of anything though so "redesigned" might
be the best we can do.

> lgtm
> 
> This needs to done behind a flag... OK, I wasn't really thinking about that. 
Will make the code a little more complicated.  I don't think you need more
reviewers, you can use the CQ dry run to check.

Yeah we kind of thought about it during our weekly today. I totally forgot about
this too when making the doc. My bad!

> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2031763002/diff/1/chrome/app/generated_resour...
> File chrome/app/generated_resources.grd (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2031763002/diff/1/chrome/app/generated_resour...
> chrome/app/generated_resources.grd:13310: +        Switch to the redesigned
user menu
> Nit: maybe say "Use redesigned user menu"

[Jane, 2016-06-01 20:54:32]

On 2016/06/01 20:48:08, anthonyvd wrote:
> On 2016/06/01 at 20:40:14, rogerta wrote:
> 
> lgtm % minor nit: We tend to stay away from qualifiers like "new" and
> "redesigned" in code because they're not the most descriptive long-term and
for
> someone not working on the team. Is there something more descriptive we can
use?
> I have to admit, I can't really think of anything though so "redesigned" might
> be the best we can do.
> 
> > lgtm
> > 
> > This needs to done behind a flag... OK, I wasn't really thinking about that.

> Will make the code a little more complicated.  I don't think you need more
> reviewers, you can use the CQ dry run to check.
> 
> Yeah we kind of thought about it during our weekly today. I totally forgot
about
> this too when making the doc. My bad!
> 
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2031763002/diff/1/chrome/app/generated_resour...
> > File chrome/app/generated_resources.grd (right):
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2031763002/diff/1/chrome/app/generated_resour...
> > chrome/app/generated_resources.grd:13310: +        Switch to the redesigned
> user menu
> > Nit: maybe say "Use redesigned user menu"

Can we maybe say "material design user menu" or something like "fast switching
user menu"? Although neither of them cover all of the project...

[Jane, 2016-06-01 20:55:11]

Description was changed from

==========
Creates a flag to be used for the desktop user menu revamp project.
Testing was done on the chrome://flags page as well as to use
switches::UsePasswordSeparatedSigninFlow().

BUG=615893
==========

to

==========
Creates a flag to be used for the desktop user menu revamp project.
Testing was done on the chrome://flags page as well as to use
switches::IsRedesignedDesktopUserMenu().

BUG=615893
==========

[anthonyvd, 2016-06-01 20:57:35]

On 2016/06/01 at 20:54:32, janeliulwq wrote:
> On 2016/06/01 20:48:08, anthonyvd wrote:
> > On 2016/06/01 at 20:40:14, rogerta wrote:
> > 
> > lgtm % minor nit: We tend to stay away from qualifiers like "new" and
> > "redesigned" in code because they're not the most descriptive long-term and
for
> > someone not working on the team. Is there something more descriptive we can
use?
> > I have to admit, I can't really think of anything though so "redesigned"
might
> > be the best we can do.
> > 
> > > lgtm
> > > 
> > > This needs to done behind a flag... OK, I wasn't really thinking about
that. 
> > Will make the code a little more complicated.  I don't think you need more
> > reviewers, you can use the CQ dry run to check.
> > 
> > Yeah we kind of thought about it during our weekly today. I totally forgot
about
> > this too when making the doc. My bad!
> > 
> > > 
> > >
> >
https://codereview.chromium.org/2031763002/diff/1/chrome/app/generated_resour...
> > > File chrome/app/generated_resources.grd (right):
> > > 
> > >
> >
https://codereview.chromium.org/2031763002/diff/1/chrome/app/generated_resour...
> > > chrome/app/generated_resources.grd:13310: +        Switch to the
redesigned
> > user menu
> > > Nit: maybe say "Use redesigned user menu"
> 
> Can we maybe say "material design user menu" or something like "fast switching
user menu"? Although neither of them cover all of the project...

I think MaterialDesignUserMenu might be good. It's not the *most* descriptive of
all you'll be doing but it's better than Redesigned and I don't think it's worth
losing sleep over a flag name.

[Jane, 2016-06-01 21:17:11]

On 2016/06/01 20:57:35, anthonyvd wrote:
> On 2016/06/01 at 20:54:32, janeliulwq wrote:
> > On 2016/06/01 20:48:08, anthonyvd wrote:
> > > On 2016/06/01 at 20:40:14, rogerta wrote:
> > > 
> > > lgtm % minor nit: We tend to stay away from qualifiers like "new" and
> > > "redesigned" in code because they're not the most descriptive long-term
and
> for
> > > someone not working on the team. Is there something more descriptive we
can
> use?
> > > I have to admit, I can't really think of anything though so "redesigned"
> might
> > > be the best we can do.
> > > 
> > > > lgtm
> > > > 
> > > > This needs to done behind a flag... OK, I wasn't really thinking about
> that. 
> > > Will make the code a little more complicated.  I don't think you need more
> > > reviewers, you can use the CQ dry run to check.
> > > 
> > > Yeah we kind of thought about it during our weekly today. I totally forgot
> about
> > > this too when making the doc. My bad!
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > >
> > >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2031763002/diff/1/chrome/app/generated_resour...
> > > > File chrome/app/generated_resources.grd (right):
> > > > 
> > > >
> > >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2031763002/diff/1/chrome/app/generated_resour...
> > > > chrome/app/generated_resources.grd:13310: +        Switch to the
> redesigned
> > > user menu
> > > > Nit: maybe say "Use redesigned user menu"
> > 
> > Can we maybe say "material design user menu" or something like "fast
switching
> user menu"? Although neither of them cover all of the project...
> 
> I think MaterialDesignUserMenu might be good. It's not the *most* descriptive
of
> all you'll be doing but it's better than Redesigned and I don't think it's
worth
> losing sleep over a flag name.

Alright, changed it to be material design and definitely not going to lose
sleep.

[Jane, 2016-06-01 21:17:57]

The CQ bit was checked by janeliulwq@google.com

[Jane, 2016-06-01 21:17:57]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from
rogerta@chromium.org, anthonyvd@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2031763002/#ps40001
(title: "Changed name to material design")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-06-01 21:18:52]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/2031763002/40001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/2031763002/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-06-02 01:57:42]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-06-02 01:57:43]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_chromium_rel_ng on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)

[Jane, 2016-06-02 02:06:37]

The CQ bit was checked by janeliulwq@google.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-06-02 02:07:11]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/2031763002/40001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/2031763002/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-06-02 02:53:36]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-06-02 02:53:37]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_chromium_rel_ng on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)

[Jane, 2016-06-02 14:29:38]

The CQ bit was checked by janeliulwq@google.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-06-02 14:30:07]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/2031763002/40001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/2031763002/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-06-02 14:34:22]

Description was changed from

==========
Creates a flag to be used for the desktop user menu revamp project.
Testing was done on the chrome://flags page as well as to use
switches::IsRedesignedDesktopUserMenu().

BUG=615893
==========

to

==========
Creates a flag to be used for the desktop user menu revamp project.
Testing was done on the chrome://flags page as well as to use
switches::IsRedesignedDesktopUserMenu().

BUG=615893
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-06-02 14:34:23]

Committed patchset #3 (id:40001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-06-02 14:35:53]

Description was changed from

==========
Creates a flag to be used for the desktop user menu revamp project.
Testing was done on the chrome://flags page as well as to use
switches::IsRedesignedDesktopUserMenu().

BUG=615893
==========

to

==========
Creates a flag to be used for the desktop user menu revamp project.
Testing was done on the chrome://flags page as well as to use
switches::IsRedesignedDesktopUserMenu().

BUG=615893

Committed: https://crrev.com/5601bd63e3623961b7afc85e8cb2e77d60d0c694
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#397395}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-06-02 14:35:54]

Patchset 3 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/5601bd63e3623961b7afc85e8cb2e77d60d0c694
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#397395}