Reland of "update SCM and expectations all at once after all commands".

Reland of "update SCM and expectations all at once after all commands".

Revert of http://crrev.com/2380533003/, reland of http://crrev.com/2341643005.

This patch should only be landed with changes to avoid problems like http://crbug.com/650944.

BUG=639410

[qyearsley, 2016-10-04 22:27:04]

Created Reland of In rebaseline.py, update SCM and expectations all at once
after all commands.

[qyearsley, 2016-10-04 22:29:06]

Description was changed from

==========
Reland of In rebaseline.py, update SCM and expectations all at once after all
commands. (patchset #2 id:120001 of https://codereview.chromium.org/2380533003/
)

Reason for revert:
Create reland patch

Original issue's description:
> Revert of In rebaseline.py, update SCM and expectations all at once after all
commands. (patchset #2 id:20001 of https://codereview.chromium.org/2341643005/ )
> 
> Reason for revert:
> Caused rebaseline-o-matic to fail: http://crrev.com/650944
> 
> Could be re-landed with a fix.
> 
> Original issue's description:
> > In rebaseline.py, update SCM and expectations all at once after all
commands.
> >
> > This is meant to fix http://crbug.com/639410 by making it so that if there
are files that are both added and deleted (e.g. downloaded and then de-duped),
they won't ever be staged since all changes would be aggregated and de-duped
before running git add/rm.
> >
> > BUG=639410
> >
> > Committed: https://crrev.com/34fdc9df872c6ce13e6c3c546084435321d4e882
> > Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#420461}
> 
> TBR=dpranke@chromium.org,wkorman@chromium.org
> # Not skipping CQ checks because original CL landed more than 1 days ago.
> BUG=639410
> 
> Committed: https://crrev.com/48a6db917e5860b4798c5c16565bbc03304433d3
> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#421556}

TBR=dpranke@chromium.org,wkorman@chromium.org
# Not skipping CQ checks because original CL landed more than 1 days ago.
BUG=639410
==========

to

==========
Reland of "update SCM and expectations all at once after all commands".

Revert of http://crrev.com/2380533003/, reland of http://crrev.com/2341643005.

This patch should only be landed with changes to avoid problems like
http://crbug.com/650944.

BUG=639410
==========

[qyearsley, 2016-10-04 22:41:38]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2396433004/diff/110001/third_party/WebKit/Too...
File
third_party/WebKit/Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/common/checkout/baselineoptimizer.py
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2396433004/diff/110001/third_party/WebKit/Too...
third_party/WebKit/Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/common/checkout/baselineoptimizer.py:254:
self._files_to_delete.extend(scm_files)
This is a fix that I think in theory should prevent http://crbug.com/650944 from
happening again if this is submitted.

[qyearsley, 2016-10-04 23:29:24]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-04 23:29:46]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[qyearsley, 2016-10-04 23:30:52]

An alternative to this CL (which I like better if it's feasible/reasonable) is
to not try to update the SCM at all, except perhaps calling `git add --all`
before committing/uploading a CL; see http://crrev.com/2397573002.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-05 01:00:56]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-05 01:00:57]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[Dirk Pranke, 2016-10-06 18:01:31]

I'm a bit lost. Do you still want to land this? lgtm if so.

[qyearsley, 2016-10-06 18:07:14]

On 2016/10/06 at 18:01:31, dpranke wrote:
> I'm a bit lost. Do you still want to land this? lgtm if so.

I'd still want to land this, unless upon consideration
http://crrev.com/2397573002 (removing all logic related to tracking SCM changes)
seems like a better idea :-)

[Dirk Pranke, 2016-10-06 18:16:01]

On 2016/10/06 18:07:14, qyearsley wrote:
> On 2016/10/06 at 18:01:31, dpranke wrote:
> > I'm a bit lost. Do you still want to land this? lgtm if so.
> 
> I'd still want to land this, unless upon consideration
> http://crrev.com/2397573002 (removing all logic related to tracking SCM
changes)
> seems like a better idea :-)

Yes, that seems like a better idea.

[wkorman, 2016-10-06 21:11:11]

On 2016/10/06 18:07:14, qyearsley wrote:
> On 2016/10/06 at 18:01:31, dpranke wrote:
> > I'm a bit lost. Do you still want to land this? lgtm if so.
> 
> I'd still want to land this, unless upon consideration
> http://crrev.com/2397573002 (removing all logic related to tracking SCM
changes)
> seems like a better idea :-)

I'm supportive of trying the other change, commented over there.

[qyearsley, 2016-10-06 23:04:32]

On 2016/10/06 at 21:11:11, wkorman wrote:
> On 2016/10/06 18:07:14, qyearsley wrote:
> > On 2016/10/06 at 18:01:31, dpranke wrote:
> > > I'm a bit lost. Do you still want to land this? lgtm if so.
> > 
> > I'd still want to land this, unless upon consideration
> > http://crrev.com/2397573002 (removing all logic related to tracking SCM
changes)
> > seems like a better idea :-)
> 
> I'm supportive of trying the other change, commented over there.

Excellent, now closing this CL and working on that one :-)