Reverting bisect-builds.py changes, because switch is still useful for debugging older builds.

Reverting bisect-builds.py changes, because switch is still useful for debugging older builds.

> Remove kEnablePrintPreview now that the pdf plugin is part of Chromium.
>
> R=thestig@chromium.org
>
> Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/296453015

NOTRY=True
BUG=395687
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=284461

[jam, 2014-07-18 21:02:39]

how many people use this old flag? if it's just you or another one or two
people, can you use an older version of the script? that way we don't keep the
extra code around.

[Vitaly Buka (NO REVIEWS), 2014-07-18 21:16:50]

On 2014/07/18 21:02:39, jam wrote:
> how many people use this old flag? if it's just you or another one or two
> people, can you use an older version of the script? that way we don't keep the
> extra code around.

i don't see why even few people should have inconvenience just for those lines.
This is script designed to work with entire chromium history, so there is no
problem that it uses older flags.

Using old, fixed revision of script is not good solution, because trunk of scrip
may reflect changes in build archive location.
We already changed URLs of archive, and probably would change again.

I'd like to keep this flags, for some time, maybe till 2015. We still expect to
detect regressions that were introduced before PDF was opened.

[jam, 2014-07-21 17:13:04]

On 2014/07/18 21:16:50, Vitaly Buka wrote:
> On 2014/07/18 21:02:39, jam wrote:
> > how many people use this old flag? if it's just you or another one or two
> > people, can you use an older version of the script? that way we don't keep
the
> > extra code around.
> 
> i don't see why even few people should have inconvenience just for those
lines.
> This is script designed to work with entire chromium history, so there is no
> problem that it uses older flags.
> 
> Using old, fixed revision of script is not good solution, because trunk of
scrip
> may reflect changes in build archive location.
> We already changed URLs of archive, and probably would change again.
> 
> I'd like to keep this flags, for some time, maybe till 2015. We still expect
to
> detect regressions that were introduced before PDF was opened.

ok, lgtm

please add a TODO assigned to you with a date cutoff to revert this

[Vitaly Buka (NO REVIEWS), 2014-07-21 18:01:19]

done 
On 2014/07/21 17:13:04, jam wrote:
> On 2014/07/18 21:16:50, Vitaly Buka wrote:
> > On 2014/07/18 21:02:39, jam wrote:
> > > how many people use this old flag? if it's just you or another one or two
> > > people, can you use an older version of the script? that way we don't keep
> the
> > > extra code around.
> > 
> > i don't see why even few people should have inconvenience just for those
> lines.
> > This is script designed to work with entire chromium history, so there is no
> > problem that it uses older flags.
> > 
> > Using old, fixed revision of script is not good solution, because trunk of
> scrip
> > may reflect changes in build archive location.
> > We already changed URLs of archive, and probably would change again.
> > 
> > I'd like to keep this flags, for some time, maybe till 2015. We still expect
> to
> > detect regressions that were introduced before PDF was opened.
> 
> ok, lgtm
> 
> please add a TODO assigned to you with a date cutoff to revert this

[Vitaly Buka (NO REVIEWS), 2014-07-21 18:01:23]

The CQ bit was checked by vitalybuka@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-21 18:04:33]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/vitalybuka@chromium.org/395363002/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-21 18:07:19]

Change committed as 284461