On Sep 12, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Ojan Vafai <o...@chromium.org> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <m...@apple.com> wrote: > - Is this approach substantially less time and effort than adding a > histogram-style metric? I expect you have added a histogram to Chrome at some > point, and so can comment on the relative difficulty and time to produce an > answer. > (BTW we have the capability to do this type of thing in Safari as well, and > it is what I ask Apple engineers to do when they want to remove a feature, > even a purely Mac-specific one.) > > FWIW, histograms can only tell you a percentile. We never report back URLs > due to privacy concerns. So, it's somewhat underpowered compared to > experimentally removing a feature and seeing what sites break. I'm not saying > that's not a useful signal, just clarifying what data is possible for > Chromium to gather in the wild.
That's about what the equivalent Safari mechanism does too. What it can tell you is stuff like "feature x is used very little by sites users actually visit" without risk of breakage. But if there is significant use, it won't tell you what sites it is on or whether it's critical. Cheers, Maciej
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
