Second batch of corrections for incorrect paths.

Second batch of corrections for incorrect paths.

BUG=none
R= binji@chromium.org, jfb@chromium.org
TEST=none
NOTRY=true
(documentation only change)

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=291006

[binji, 2014-08-20 19:09:34]

lgtm, w/ comment about NACL_SDK_ROOT

https://codereview.chromium.org/488133003/diff/1/native_client_sdk/src/doc/de...
File native_client_sdk/src/doc/devguide/devcycle/debugging.rst (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/488133003/diff/1/native_client_sdk/src/doc/de...
native_client_sdk/src/doc/devguide/devcycle/debugging.rst:427: cd
<NACL_SDK_ROOT>/pepper_<version>/examples/demo/drive
same as before, NACL_SDK_ROOT in the code is expected to already have
pepper_<version>. Maybe we should use a different name here.

[jpmedley, 2014-08-20 20:15:02]

I changed the paths further in this and the other change list.

https://codereview.chromium.org/488133003/diff/1/native_client_sdk/src/doc/de...
File native_client_sdk/src/doc/devguide/devcycle/debugging.rst (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/488133003/diff/1/native_client_sdk/src/doc/de...
native_client_sdk/src/doc/devguide/devcycle/debugging.rst:427: cd
<NACL_SDK_ROOT>/pepper_<version>/examples/demo/drive
On 2014/08/20 19:09:34, binji wrote:
> same as before, NACL_SDK_ROOT in the code is expected to already have
> pepper_<version>. Maybe we should use a different name here.
Somebody was worried that nacl_sdk/ would change. Probably not a good trade-off
now that you mention it.

[binji, 2014-08-20 21:10:11]

better, thanks!

[jpmedley, 2014-08-21 01:52:46]

The CQ bit was checked by jmedley@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-21 01:53:38]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/jmedley@chromium.org/488133003/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-21 02:53:39]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
The failing builders are:
  linux_gpu on tryserver.chromium.gpu
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.gpu/builders/linux_gpu/builds/...)

[JF, 2014-08-21 03:12:06]

The CQ bit was unchecked by jfb@chromium.org

[JF, 2014-08-21 03:12:12]

The CQ bit was checked by jfb@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-21 03:13:13]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/jmedley@chromium.org/488133003/20001

[JF, 2014-08-21 03:14:10]

On 2014/08/21 03:12:06, JF wrote:
> The CQ bit was unchecked by mailto:jfb@chromium.org

FYI I unchecked and rechecked the commit button, but in the meantime I added the
following to the bug description:

BUG=none
R= binji@chromium.org, jfb@chromium.org
TEST=none
NOTRY=true
(documentation only change)


These are automatically parsed by tools, so you always want them there. The
special one is NOTRY=true, which means that the CQ should skip trybots. You
always want to justify this, hence the documentation only change: you can't
break code with this CL (so sheriffs shouldn't revert you). Doing this avoid
flakes on the CQ when you know it can't be the source of failure :-)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-21 04:49:50]

Committed patchset #2 (20001) as 291006