Update cpplint.py to r119.

Update cpplint.py to r119.

The only difference compared to upstream[1] is the shebang line from
depot_tools r136603.

[1] https://code.google.com/p/google-styleguide/source/browse/trunk/cpplint/cpplint.py?spec=svn131&r=119

R=maruel@chromium.org
BUG=

Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=269187

[cmp, 2014-05-07 19:09:02]

+iannucci, agable, szager for review

[szager1, 2014-05-07 19:15:32]

In the description, can you add a link to the upstream soure?

[Raphael Kubo da Costa (rakuco), 2014-05-07 21:17:30]

done

[szager1, 2014-05-08 17:01:01]

My only concerns are:

- Basic nervousness around landing untrusted executable code.

- Will this surprise developers with a slew of new lint errors?


I did a cursory scan of the diff for possible security issues, and didn't see
anything, but I'd like someone else to do so before signing off.

[Raphael Kubo da Costa (rakuco), 2014-05-08 17:13:55]

I don't see the same concern in the CLs updating cpplint to other revisions. I
could just cherry-pick the parts I'm particularly interested in, but it would
lead to a lot of headache once someone decides to actually update the whole file
in the future.

[szager1, 2014-05-08 17:15:43]

On 2014/05/08 17:13:55, Raphael Kubo da Costa (rakuco) wrote:
> I don't see the same concern in the CLs updating cpplint to other revisions. I
> could just cherry-pick the parts I'm particularly interested in, but it would
> lead to a lot of headache once someone decides to actually update the whole
file
> in the future.

I'm not saying you shouldn't land it, I just want to do due diligence first.

[Raphael Kubo da Costa (rakuco), 2014-05-08 17:19:42]

Fair enough, let me know if there's any way I can help with this.

[iannucci, 2014-05-08 23:23:36]

As rakuco@ says, the only difference from the original is the shebang line :)

lgtm

[szager1, 2014-05-08 23:42:36]

lgtm

[Raphael Kubo da Costa (rakuco), 2014-05-09 08:45:06]

The CQ bit was checked by raphael.kubo.da.costa@intel.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-09 08:46:31]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at

https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/raphael.kubo.da.costa@intel.com/269013...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-09 08:48:21]

Change committed as 269187

[Andrew Low, 2014-06-06 16:49:21]

On 2014/05/06 10:49:12, Raphael Kubo da Costa (rakuco) wrote:

Unfortunately this commit broke V8 3.14 (and probably other earlier versions of
the code). It may be that the V8 project as a whole doesn't care about back
levels. However, this is evidence that this patch set introduced more changes
than something simple.

To test this (on Linux)

git clone -b 3.14 https://github.com/v8/v8.git
git clone https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/tools/depot_tools.git
export PATH=`pwd`/depot_tools:$PATH
cd depot_tools
git checkout -b broken 331fbc43e3e461a77cb45019575d9481c690d57e
cd ../v8
tools/presubmit.py

This should result in 113 failures

Now if we go back and try again with the depot_tools at the previous commit
level

cd ../depot_tools
git checkout -b working 5912063e0d64949d031f4bdf497fed68c26fd1f7
cd ../v8
rm .cpplint-cache
tools/presubmit.py

Now things run clean.

As the errors (113 with this patch, and 123 with 'master' as of today) are
across many common files (as well as platform specific files) - for people
working against 3.14 level code bases, it doesn't seem to make sense to
introduce a lot of new changes. However, the trade off here is that we cannot
benefit from additional code-correctness.