OK - let's consider this I2S officially revived. Looking for a 3rd LGTM
to begin shipping in M115.
We have implemented 3rd party deprecation trial support for M115+ (see
https://developer.chrome.com/blog/storage-partitioning-deprecation-trial/#participate-in-the-deprecation-trials),
and extended the deprecation trial's expiration date accordingly to
account for the delay. And we have the Enterprise policy ready to go.
The rollout schedule will look something like the following, pending
metrics and compatibility stability:
July 25th: 1% of Stable population (approximately 1 week after M115 is
released)
Aug 8th: 10%
Aug 22nd: 50%
Sep 5: 100%
As always, if we discover significant user-facing breakage we'll explore
pausing or rolling back to address.
thanks,
Mike
On 5/1/23 10:43 AM, Mike Taylor wrote:
Thanks Rick and Yoav.
We learned from two partners (one internal, one external) late last
week that a 3P deprecation trial would be needed for them to preserve
widely-used functionality while they work on a migration strategy.
We're tracking the work in crbug.com/1441411 and hope to have that
ready by M115. Once we land the fix, I'll circle back and look for a
3rd LGTM and have an updated rollout schedule. :)
On 5/1/23 12:21 AM, Yoav Weiss wrote:
LGTM2
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, 16:23 Rick Byers <rby...@chromium.org> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 2:02 PM Mike Taylor
<miketa...@chromium.org> wrote:
On 4/26/23 9:36 AM, Mike Taylor wrote:
> On 4/25/23 12:00 PM, Rick Byers wrote:
>
>> In terms of the standards / process piece, it looks as if
the spec
>> PRs have all stalled for several months. What do you think is
>> necessary to get these unblocked and landed? As the last
engine to
>> implement this behavior, perhaps we shouldn't feel too
compelled to
>> block shipping on PRs landing?
I was gently reminded offline that I didn't answer this part
of your
question - oops.
Right now it seems to me that the costs of landing these spec
PRs is
higher than we're willing to block on, given the requested
refactoring
(and yes, it's unfortunate that 3 engines would be shipping
essentially
unspecced behavior, but that's where we're at). That said,
I'm happy to
devote my few IC hours to pushing these along as a personal
project over
the coming months.
Thanks Mike. I trust your and wanderview@'s judgement here - I
know how hard y'all have been willing to work in the past to get
the right thing done in specs. Thanks for being willing to keep
pushing in parallel. But given two other implementations have
already shipped this, it was clearly already a spec bug that the
spec didn't reflect reality. I agree that we shouldn't block
shipping a 3rd implementation on spec refactoring work.
LGTM1 to ship from my perspective. Obviously this will need a
very thoughtful and careful roll-out. But I trust Mike and his
team to engage with impacted folks to make sure it goes smoothly,
as they did with UA reduction.
--
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/bc52292b-9142-adad-d126-b93231468ed0%40chromium.org.
