Revert of Move Java CachedMetrics functionality to base/.

Revert of Move Java CachedMetrics functionality to base/. (patchset #2 id:40001 of https://codereview.chromium.org/2435813002/ )

Reason for revert:
Broke Clank: ExternalAuthUtilsInternal depends on
LaunchMetrics.TimesHistogramSample.

Original issue's description:
> Move Java CachedMetrics functionality to base/.
> 
> This is general-purpose functionality that allows
> recording UMA metrics before the C++ native library
> has been loaded and is useful to have outside of the
> Chrome layer. In particular, I will be using it from
> components/variations to record information about the
> first run variations seed fetch.
> 
> No functional changes in this CL.
> 
> BUG=632199
TBR=bauerb@chromium.org,thestig@chromium.org,asvitkine@chromium.org
# Skipping CQ checks because original CL landed less than 1 days ago.
NOPRESUBMIT=true
NOTREECHECKS=true
NOTRY=true
BUG=632199

[DmitrySkiba, 2016-10-21 02:28:33]

The CQ bit was checked by dskiba@chromium.org

[DmitrySkiba, 2016-10-21 02:28:34]

Created Revert of Move Java CachedMetrics functionality to base/.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-21 02:29:09]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-21 02:29:10]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-21 02:29:11]

No L-G-T-M from a valid reviewer yet. 
CQ run can only be started by full committers or once the patch has
received an L-G-T-M from a full committer.
Even if an L-G-T-M may have been provided, it was from a non-committer,
_not_ a full super star committer.
See http://www.chromium.org/getting-involved/become-a-committer
Note that this has nothing to do with OWNERS files.

[Lei Zhang, 2016-10-21 02:38:51]

What is the approach here?

1) Is downstream suppose to just fix their code to adapt to the upstream change?
2) Or do we do the 2 sided change dance - make a backwards compatible change
upstream, change downstream to use the new thing, remove backwards compatibility
upstream?

[Dmitry Skiba, 2016-10-21 02:43:23]

On 2016/10/21 02:38:51, Lei Zhang wrote:
> What is the approach here?
> 
> 1) Is downstream suppose to just fix their code to adapt to the upstream
change?
> 2) Or do we do the 2 sided change dance - make a backwards compatible change
> upstream, change downstream to use the new thing, remove backwards
compatibility
> upstream?

Normally I would just fix Clank (or ask someone). Unfortunately, I'm on a bus,
and it's late here in MTV, so that option is not viable. Sorry about the revert.

(BTW, this is not the revert that will go in, it's
https://codereview.chromium.org/2443483003).

[Lei Zhang, 2016-10-21 02:47:02]

On 2016/10/21 02:43:23, Dmitry Skiba wrote:
> On 2016/10/21 02:38:51, Lei Zhang wrote:
> > What is the approach here?
> > 
> > 1) Is downstream suppose to just fix their code to adapt to the upstream
> change?
> > 2) Or do we do the 2 sided change dance - make a backwards compatible change
> > upstream, change downstream to use the new thing, remove backwards
> compatibility
> > upstream?
> 
> Normally I would just fix Clank (or ask someone). Unfortunately, I'm on a bus,
> and it's late here in MTV, so that option is not viable. Sorry about the
revert.
> 
> (BTW, this is not the revert that will go in, it's
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2443483003).

Got it. Maybe Alexei can coordinate the re-land tomorrow.

Yes, I saw 2 CLs and wasn't sure which to comment on.

[Alexei Svitkine (slow), 2016-10-21 16:30:31]

Sorry for the breakage. Will try to reland with the fixes today. It's
unfortunate that cq doesn't have coverage for this type of breakage.

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:47 PM, <thestig@chromium.org> wrote:

> On 2016/10/21 02:43:23, Dmitry Skiba wrote:
> > On 2016/10/21 02:38:51, Lei Zhang wrote:
> > > What is the approach here?
> > >
> > > 1) Is downstream suppose to just fix their code to adapt to the
> upstream
> > change?
> > > 2) Or do we do the 2 sided change dance - make a backwards compatible
> change
> > > upstream, change downstream to use the new thing, remove backwards
> > compatibility
> > > upstream?
> >
> > Normally I would just fix Clank (or ask someone). Unfortunately, I'm on
> a bus,
> > and it's late here in MTV, so that option is not viable. Sorry about the
> revert.
> >
> > (BTW, this is not the revert that will go in, it's
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/2443483003).
>
> Got it. Maybe Alexei can coordinate the re-land tomorrow.
>
> Yes, I saw 2 CLs and wasn't sure which to comment on.
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2442503005/
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Chromium-reviews" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.