Add TODO comments on deprecated VideoFrame methods.

Add TODO comments on deprecated VideoFrame methods.

NOTRY=True

BUG=webrtc:5682
Committed: https://crrev.com/66910708ac5830e80de103eda0777385b898a003
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#13256}

[nisse-webrtc, 2016-06-22 10:06:38]

nisse@webrtc.org changed reviewers:
+ pbos@webrtc.org, sergeyu@chromium.org

[nisse-webrtc, 2016-06-22 10:06:38]

Hi, this cl adds TODO comments on methods which are obstacles to the
cricket::VideoFrame and webrtc::VideoFrame merge.

[pbos-webrtc, 2016-06-22 10:23:46]

https://codereview.webrtc.org/2088193002/diff/20001/webrtc/media/base/videofr...
File webrtc/media/base/videoframe.h (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/2088193002/diff/20001/webrtc/media/base/videofr...
webrtc/media/base/videoframe.h:61: // TODO(nisse): Should be deleted in the
cricket::VideoFrame and
Mark more clearly that they're deprecated and explain what users should use
instead. Here, below and the other files. Be clear about what any new users
should do.

[nisse-webrtc, 2016-06-22 11:01:49]

https://codereview.webrtc.org/2088193002/diff/20001/webrtc/media/base/videofr...
File webrtc/media/base/videoframe.h (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/2088193002/diff/20001/webrtc/media/base/videofr...
webrtc/media/base/videoframe.h:61: // TODO(nisse): Should be deleted in the
cricket::VideoFrame and
On 2016/06/22 10:23:46, pbos-webrtc wrote:
> Mark more clearly that they're deprecated and explain what users should use
> instead. Here, below and the other files. Be clear about what any new users
> should do.

Problem is, that it's only clear that the methods are in the way, it's less
clear if and how the functionality will be replaced.

But I can try to add some per-method advice.

[nisse-webrtc, 2016-06-22 11:58:36]

Added some more advice on substitutes to the deprecated methods.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/2088193002/diff/20001/webrtc/media/base/videofr...
File webrtc/media/base/videoframe.h (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/2088193002/diff/20001/webrtc/media/base/videofr...
webrtc/media/base/videoframe.h:28: VideoFrame() {}
Why does it even have a constructor? It's an abstract class.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/2088193002/diff/20001/webrtc/media/base/videofr...
webrtc/media/base/videoframe.h:61: // TODO(nisse): Should be deleted in the
cricket::VideoFrame and
On 2016/06/22 10:23:46, pbos-webrtc wrote:
> Mark more clearly that they're deprecated and explain what users should use
> instead. Here, below and the other files. Be clear about what any new users
> should do.

Done.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/2088193002/diff/20001/webrtc/media/base/videofr...
webrtc/media/base/videoframe.h:87: static bool Validate(uint32_t fourcc,
This method could probably be moved from public to protected right away. But I'd
prefer to have this cl change comments only.

[pbos-webrtc, 2016-06-22 15:38:02]

lgtm

[nisse-webrtc, 2016-06-22 15:46:05]

The CQ bit was checked by nisse@webrtc.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-06-22 15:46:14]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/2088193002/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-06-22 15:47:55]

Committed patchset #3 (id:40001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-06-22 15:47:57]

Description was changed from

==========
Add TODO comments on deprecated VideoFrame methods.

NOTRY=True

BUG=webrtc:5682
==========

to

==========
Add TODO comments on deprecated VideoFrame methods.

NOTRY=True

BUG=webrtc:5682

Committed: https://crrev.com/66910708ac5830e80de103eda0777385b898a003
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#13256}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-06-22 15:47:58]

Patchset 3 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/66910708ac5830e80de103eda0777385b898a003
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#13256}