CSS Media Query now reports touch-support accurately for Windows (retry)

CSS Media Query now reports touch-support accurately for Windows (retry)
This patch was LGTM'ed as https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10836349/
and submitted through the CQ, but was later reverted.  Re-patching.

BUG=143792
Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=156091

[girard, 2012-09-10 18:07:01]

Repeat CL.
Note: I'm not using copyright headers as per recent policy change.

[Rick Byers, 2012-09-10 18:11:42]

On 2012/09/10 18:07:01, girard wrote:
> Repeat CL.
> Note: I'm not using copyright headers as per recent policy change.

I assume this is unchanged from the previous attempt.  Feel free to TBR in that
case (but please include a link to the previous CR).

[Rick Byers, 2012-09-10 18:15:12]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10915175/diff/2001/ui/base/touch/touch...
File ui/base/touch/touch_device_win.h (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10915175/diff/2001/ui/base/touch/touch...
ui/base/touch/touch_device_win.h:7: namespace base {
We don't normally use "ui::base", do we?  The ambiguity with ::base could be
annoying if more files started to include this header (as you saw with the build
error).  I did a quick check elsewhere in ui/base/ and found only 'namespace
ui', but maybe I'm missing some.

[girard, 2012-09-10 18:54:26]

On 2012/09/10 18:11:42, Rick Byers wrote:
> On 2012/09/10 18:07:01, girard wrote:
> > Repeat CL.
> > Note: I'm not using copyright headers as per recent policy change.
> 
> I assume this is unchanged from the previous attempt.  Feel free to TBR in
that
> case (but please include a link to the previous CR).

As I understand it, only committers can use a TBR?

[girard, 2012-09-10 19:03:03]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10915175/diff/2001/ui/base/touch/touch...
File ui/base/touch/touch_device_win.h (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10915175/diff/2001/ui/base/touch/touch...
ui/base/touch/touch_device_win.h:7: namespace base {
On 2012/09/10 18:15:12, Rick Byers wrote:
> We don't normally use "ui::base", do we?  The ambiguity with ::base could be
> annoying if more files started to include this header (as you saw with the
build
> error).  I did a quick check elsewhere in ui/base/ and found only 'namespace
> ui', but maybe I'm missing some.

The namespace is ambiguous, and this can be annoying.  I would assume that
removing the similar namespace would be troublesome to say the least.  It's not
a big deal to use a full path to specify the namespace.

My bigger concern is that only chromeos complained about this... Apparently the
different compilers or flags have different implementations of Koenig lookup.

[girard, 2012-09-11 02:05:42]

On 2012/09/10 19:03:03, girard wrote:
>
https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10915175/diff/2001/ui/base/touch/touch...
> File ui/base/touch/touch_device_win.h (right):
> 
>
https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10915175/diff/2001/ui/base/touch/touch...
> ui/base/touch/touch_device_win.h:7: namespace base {
> On 2012/09/10 18:15:12, Rick Byers wrote:
> > We don't normally use "ui::base", do we?  The ambiguity with ::base could be
> > annoying if more files started to include this header (as you saw with the
> build
> > error).  I did a quick check elsewhere in ui/base/ and found only 'namespace
> > ui', but maybe I'm missing some.
> 
> The namespace is ambiguous, and this can be annoying.  I would assume that
> removing the similar namespace would be troublesome to say the least.  It's
not
> a big deal to use a full path to specify the namespace.
> 
> My bigger concern is that only chromeos complained about this... Apparently
the
> different compilers or flags have different implementations of Koenig lookup.

Oof! I'm an idiot.
I thought that files in ui/base would be in the namespace ui::base.
Patch set 3 fixes this by removing the extra namespace, and all references.

[Rick Byers, 2012-09-11 13:00:56]

lgtm

[sky, 2012-09-11 16:09:57]

LGTM

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-09-11 16:38:14]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/girard@chromium.org/10915175/8001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-09-11 16:38:18]

Presubmit check for 10915175-8001 failed and returned exit status 1.


Running presubmit commit checks ...

** Presubmit Warnings **
License must match:
.*? Copyright (\(c\) )?(2012|2011|2010|2009|2008|2007|2006|2006-2008) The
Chromium Authors\. All rights reserved\.\n.*? Use of this source code is
governed by a BSD-style license that can be\n.*? found in the LICENSE file\.(?:
\*/)?\n
Found a bad license header in these files:
  ui/base/touch/touch_device_win.cc \
  ui/base/touch/touch_device_win.h

Presubmit checks took 1.1s to calculate.

[girard, 2012-09-11 16:51:17]

On 2012/09/11 16:38:18, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote:
> Presubmit check for 10915175-8001 failed and returned exit status 1.
> 
> 
> Running presubmit commit checks ...
> 
> ** Presubmit Warnings **
> License must match:
> .*? Copyright (\(c\) )?(2012|2011|2010|2009|2008|2007|2006|2006-2008) The
> Chromium Authors\. All rights reserved\.\n.*? Use of this source code is
> governed by a BSD-style license that can be\n.*? found in the LICENSE
file\.(?:
> \*/)?\n
> Found a bad license header in these files:
>   ui/base/touch/touch_device_win.cc \
>   ui/base/touch/touch_device_win.h
> 
> Presubmit checks took 1.1s to calculate.

Apparently the copyright notices are still required.... Adding them back.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-09-11 16:51:27]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/girard@chromium.org/10915175/2004

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-09-11 19:16:17]

Change committed as 156091