Commenting in the bug for the NI. This is the second time this happens (patch created, reviewed and landed within a few hours, and in the middle of the night for EU). That's not great, to be honest, it defies the point of watching out for issues in l10n patches and catch them before they land. https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D71830#2184769 > Yes, can you do this in code, especially since we will want to uplift this to 76. And here's the issue. I will push back uplifting this patch to 76, because we're past the deadline to accept sign-offs for beta. And, given it already landed in mozilla-central, I'm currently blocked in exposing any other string until this is clarified. The alternative is asking sheriffs to back this out, which is what I would normally do. The comment implies that the search keyword should be defined in the code, but this is adding a new string with an attribute. All other search keywords are defined in code, why should this be different?
Bug 1631944 Comment 4 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
Commenting in the bug for the NI. This is the second time this happens (patch created, reviewed and landed within a few hours, and in the middle of the night for EU). That's not great, to be honest, it defies the point of watching out for issues in l10n patches and catch them before they land. https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D71830#2184769 > Yes, can you do this in code, especially since we will want to uplift this to 76. And here's the issue. I will push back uplifting this patch to 76, because we're past the deadline to accept sign-offs for beta. And, given it already landed in mozilla-central, I'm currently blocked in exposing any other string until this is clarified. The alternative is asking sheriffs to back this out, which is what I would normally do. The comment implies that the search keyword should be defined in the code, but this is adding a new string with an attribute. All other search keywords are defined in code, why should this be different? I'm fine in keeping the patch as is, and migrate the string, but it can't be uplifted. If that's the goal, this should be backed out ASAP.