That sounds fine to me. Side question: would it be possible to treat
shadowroot as a legacy alias of shadowrootmode, in case usage doesn't go
down?
On 8/14/23 7:09 PM, Mason Freed wrote:
I'm checking back in on this deprecation thread. In the intervening 5
milestones, the use counter for the deprecated attribute
<https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/3196>
has unfortunately increased, rather than decreased. The old attribute
is seen on 0.025% of page loads, just slightly more than the new
shadowrootmode attribute
<https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/4421> which
is at 0.02%. I'm adding a UKM to look into which sites are the
culprits, but I'd also like to start Finch-disabling the feature for a
portion of Canary/Dev and maybe Beta users, to suss out problems and
improve visibility of this deprecation to site owners. We're now about
3 months out from 119 (the target removal milestone) going to stable.
Any objections?
Thanks,
Mason
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 1:36:25 PM UTC-8 Mason Freed wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 11:33 PM Yoav Weiss
<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> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 5:19 PM Jason Robbins
<jrobb...@google.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:14:48 PM UTC-8
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/5d29f2c2-44ce-4ca0-8f96-e2de71399871n%40chromium.org
<https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/5d29f2c2-44ce-4ca0-8f96-e2de71399871n%40chromium.org?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/3d3bc943-e3e8-4026-bf9f-db3a4cd46d7b%40chromium.org.
