We discussed this bug during today's APZ meeting.
* It's unclear whether we can fix this for 132.
* A proper fix may require bug 1921339 which is planned but a larger piece of work likely several months out.
* A more targeted fix is under investigation but we're not sure about its risk level / suitability for uplift to 132 at this point.
* Given the number and severity of the webcompat problems that `resizes-visual` fixes, we would prefer to avoid delaying its release.
* When we moved up the release schedule of `resizes-visual` (cc @jrmuizel on this topic), we did it with the awareness that we may have to temporarily accept some regressions which are less severe than the webcompat problems it's fixing. Bug 1915508 and bug 1915509 are known bugs in this category, and we feel this bug is in a similar boat.
Given the above, could we reconsider the tracking status of this bug, and make it `fix-optional` instead?
Bug 1918178 Comment 10 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
We discussed this bug during today's APZ meeting.
* It's unclear whether we can fix this for 132.
* A proper fix may require bug 1921339 which is planned but a larger piece of work likely several months out.
* A more targeted fix is under investigation but we're not sure about its risk level / suitability for uplift to 132 at this point.
* Given the number and severity of the webcompat problems that `resizes-visual` fixes, we would prefer to avoid delaying its release.
* When we moved up the release schedule of `resizes-visual` (cc @jrmuizel on this topic), we did it with the awareness that we may have to temporarily accept some regressions which are less severe than the webcompat problems it's fixing. Bug 1915508 and bug 1915509 were known bugs in this category, and we feel this bug is in a similar boat.
Given the above, could we reconsider the tracking status of this bug, and make it `fix-optional` instead?