Hi Mason, Are we planning to use deprecation reports (reporting API) for this deprecation?
As a side note, I've realized we don't mention that at https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features/#feature-deprecations We only mention: "At this point, you should also notify developers by adding a deprecation console message, pointing to the updated status entry in the console message." Should we update that? Cheers, Rego On 21/02/2023 22:36, Mason Freed wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 11:33 PM Yoav Weiss <yoavwe...@chromium.org > <mailto:yoavwe...@chromium.org>> wrote: > > That uptick may suggest a single large entity that started using > this, and may be easy to move to the new attribute. > Have you tried turning the usecounter into a UKM > > <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:components/page_load_metrics/browser/observers/use_counter/ukm_features.cc;l=32?q=usecounter%20ukm&ss=chromium> > to try and see where the usage is coming from? > > > Agreed, that uptick is likely a single party. My hope is that it will go > back down as that entity moves to the new attribute. Adding a UKM sounds > like a reasonable idea - I'll do that if I don't see a down-trend in the > usecounter data soon. > > > The other alternative is that some developer documentation is > pointing at the old attribute name. Can you verify that's not the case? > > > Indeed that's very likely. Our own blog post > <https://web.dev/declarative-shadow-dom/> still describes the old > attribute. (I'm working on getting that updated.) > > > Otherwise, we typically prefer to have deprecation messages with > clear milestones for their removal date. It seems to me that a year > may be a lot for this. Would you be comfortable with setting the > removal date for 6 milestones ahead? Maybe the UKM analysis can > change our thinking here? > > > I'm reasonably comfortable with targeting 6 milestones out. That'd be > roughly M118 as the last version that supports the old `shadowroot` > attribute, and M119 as the first that doesn't. And closer to the > deadline we can re-evaluate usage and make sure it's low enough for > comfort. Does that sound reasonable? If so, I'll update the > documentation and console messages accordingly. > > Thanks, > Mason > > > > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 6:38 PM Mason Freed <mas...@chromium.org > <mailto:mas...@chromium.org>> wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 5:19 PM Jason Robbins > <jrobb...@google.com <mailto:jrobb...@google.com>> wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:14:48 PM UTC-8 > yoav...@chromium.org <mailto:yoav...@chromium.org> wrote: > +Jason Robbins - FYI, this didn't make it to the > chromestatus tool. > > I have an idea about what went wrong. > > "Intent to deprecate" is the subject line that is expected > for the first stage in the deprecation process. It was > detected as such, but that stage does not require any > review. Based on this thread and the contents of the > feature entry it looks like the final stage was what needed > to be reviewed. > > > Sorry - this was my fault. The stages of deprecation are kind of > different, and the two options I had for this "deprecation" (not > "removal") were "Draft Ready for Trial email" and "Draft Intent > to Ship email". I chose the latter and renamed the subject line > to "Intent to Deprecate". I hadn't realized we had tooling look > at these emails. I guess the right thing was to choose the > "Ready for Trial" email template, and not change the subject > line. Perhaps a suggestion would be to rename those links or add > help text explaining which one is appropriate at each stage for > a deprecation/removal intent? > > Thanks, > Mason > > > The final stage detects an intent email with the subject > line "Intent to ship" or "Intent to remove". The > launching-features page uses "Intent to ship" for the final > stage of a deprecation, and when we generate the email > preview we use that subject line, but I'm guessing that it > sounded wrong so Mason edited it. > > It would probably be better if chromestatus generated a > preview with the subject line "Intent to remove" and we > updated launching-features to use that wording too. I am > tracking the issue here: > https://github.com/GoogleChrome/chromium-dashboard/issues/2749 > <https://github.com/GoogleChrome/chromium-dashboard/issues/2749> > > Thanks, > jason! > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "blink-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org > <mailto:blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAM%3DNeDjxoGAfpfBkPLdKJjGTV2T0bY4jnynhhNnEQ4bK%2BAnxKg%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAM%3DNeDjxoGAfpfBkPLdKJjGTV2T0bY4jnynhhNnEQ4bK%2BAnxKg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/f01a5b25-e06c-ffa0-f1ea-0920928d483d%40igalia.com.
