(In reply to Andrew McCreight [:mccr8] from comment #6) > Given the high rate of failure in bug 1652531, I think either this needs to get backed out or bug 1699614 needs to get landed. Given that we're in soft freeze, backing this out seems like lower risk. Is there some reason this needs to be in 88 instead of 89? If we want people to flip the pref in 88, then we'll want to land bug 1699614 in 88 no matter what, as not having it might cause some crashiness. Any thoughts? I don't know anything about the rollout of Proton for testing or whatever. There's a one-time migration that happens as part of proton toolbar work (only if `browser.proton.enabled` is flipped) so backing it out isn't very attractive. I r+'d your patch in 1699614 just over 4 hours ago though, and just lando'd it before having seen this comment. Is that sufficient here?
Bug 1696253 Comment 7 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
(In reply to Andrew McCreight [:mccr8] from comment #6) > Given the high rate of failure in bug 1652531, I think either this needs to get backed out or bug 1699614 needs to get landed. Given that we're in soft freeze, backing this out seems like lower risk. Is there some reason this needs to be in 88 instead of 89? If we want people to flip the pref in 88, then we'll want to land bug 1699614 in 88 no matter what, as not having it might cause some crashiness. Any thoughts? I don't know anything about the rollout of Proton for testing or whatever. There's a one-time migration that happens as part of proton toolbar work (only if `browser.proton.enabled` is flipped) so backing it out isn't very attractive, but we can do it if necessary. I r+'d your patch in 1699614 just over 4 hours ago though, and just lando'd it before having seen this comment. Is that sufficient here?