LGTM3 as not subject to blink process. But thanks for the heads up!
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023, 5:50 p.m. Stephen Mcgruer
wrote:
> Thanks Mike! We were following through on the I2S process because we did
> an I2E for this feature as a way to let folks verify that the UX change
> wouldn't cause
Thanks Mike! We were following through on the I2S process because we did an
I2E for this feature as a way to let folks verify that the UX change
wouldn't cause regressions.
I still think that is correct as follow-through, but we could probably have
made it clearer than we hope this I2S will be a
LGTM2 (Also not sure you need this approval, but you can have mine as well)
/Daniel
On 2023-09-13 16:46, Mike Taylor wrote:
LGTM1 (I'm not sure you need our approvals to ship this UX change, but
you can have mine).
On 9/8/23 7:09 PM, Rouslan Solomakhin wrote:
*Contact emails
LGTM1 (I'm not sure you need our approvals to ship this UX change, but
you can have mine).
On 9/8/23 7:09 PM, Rouslan Solomakhin wrote:
*Contact emails
*nbur...@chromium.org
*Explainer*
https://crbug.com/1385136 - see comment 14 for screenshot
*Specification*
Not applicable
*Design docs*
*Contact emails*nbur...@chromium.org
*Explainer*
https://crbug.com/1385136 - see comment 14 for screenshot
*Specification*
Not applicable
*Design docs*
(Google internal only, sorry):
