roll common DEPS, now using recursedeps

roll common DEPS, now using recursedeps

BUG=skia:2618
Committed: https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/03f3db02c10d82ccbb4e3d3bd12fac689ce91fc6

[epoger, 2014-07-16 16:37:42]

Eric, PTAL at patchset 1

[cmp, 2014-07-16 20:50:12]

https://codereview.chromium.org/392353003/diff/20001/DEPS
File DEPS (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/392353003/diff/20001/DEPS#newcode22
DEPS:22: recursedeps = {
use list literal for now

recursedeps = [
]

[borenet, 2014-07-16 20:53:36]

Roll itself LGTM, defer to Chase on DEPS syntax.

[epoger, 2014-07-16 20:56:15]

https://codereview.chromium.org/392353003/diff/20001/DEPS
File DEPS (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/392353003/diff/20001/DEPS#newcode22
DEPS:22: recursedeps = {
On 2014/07/16 20:50:12, cmp wrote:
> use list literal for now
> 
> recursedeps = [
> ]

Thanks for the tip, Chase, but I'm confused...

https://codereview.chromium.org/385123008/diff/20001/tests/gclient_test.py uses
a set:
recursedeps = {"bar"}

And the description in https://codereview.chromium.org/385123008 says "We'll
continue
to support using a list literal form in DEPS for now."  ("for now"?)

Which is the preferred form in the long term?  list or set?

Thanks.

[cmp, 2014-07-16 20:59:44]

On 2014/07/16 20:56:15, epoger wrote:
> Which is the preferred form in the long term?  list or set?

Set literal requires Python 2.7.  List literal works in Python 2.6 or 2.7.  Use
list literal for now to avoid introducing a Python 2.7 requirement where it's
not needed.  There exist some Python 2.6-only environments that are hard to move
to 2.7 and I'm not convinced that we're really using Python 2.7isms everywhere. 
In the future when we can claim that everything everywhere has Python 2.7 at
least, then it will be time to use set literal.

The code casts from list to set on parsing the DEPS, so the end result within
gclient is the same.

It's a good point that the tests use set literal.  The tests won't work on
Python 2.6.  That's probably worth fixing soon.

[epoger, 2014-07-16 21:10:27]

On 2014/07/16 20:59:44, cmp wrote:
> On 2014/07/16 20:56:15, epoger wrote:
> > Which is the preferred form in the long term?  list or set?
> 
> Set literal requires Python 2.7.  List literal works in Python 2.6 or 2.7. 
Use
> list literal for now to avoid introducing a Python 2.7 requirement where it's
> not needed.  There exist some Python 2.6-only environments that are hard to
move
> to 2.7 and I'm not convinced that we're really using Python 2.7isms
everywhere. 
> In the future when we can claim that everything everywhere has Python 2.7 at
> least, then it will be time to use set literal.

Thanks for the explanation, Chase.  Fixed in patchset 3.

FWIW, I prefer the list syntax anyway.  The set syntax makes me think it's a
dictionary, and I wonder why I only see keys and not values.  But I guess that's
just because I haven't drunk enough Python kool-aid yet.

[epoger, 2014-07-16 21:11:00]

The CQ bit was checked by epoger@google.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-16 21:11:36]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://skia-tree-status.appspot.com/cq/epoger@google.com/392353003/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-16 21:45:52]

Change committed as 03f3db02c10d82ccbb4e3d3bd12fac689ce91fc6