Bug 1656261 Comment 23 Edit History

Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.

### Beta/Release Uplift Approval Request
* **User impact if declined**: Speculatively, startup crashes in ErrorLoadingSheet.
* **Is this code covered by automated tests?**: Yes
* **Has the fix been verified in Nightly?**: No
* **Needs manual test from QE?**: No
* **If yes, steps to reproduce**: 
* **List of other uplifts needed**: None
* **Risk to taking this patch**: Medium
* **Why is the change risky/not risky? (and alternatives if risky)**: It's just a bit large, and is rolling back patches which were initially applied over a month ago. The rollback was fairly clean, however, so I would be surprised but not completely shocked if there were issues. Given that it's just a change to a cache, though (i.e., it intends to be transparent), it seems rather unlikely that anything since this landed has come to depend on it.
* **String changes made/needed**: None
### Beta/Release Uplift Approval Request
* **User impact if declined**: Speculatively, startup crashes in ErrorLoadingSheet.
* **Is this code covered by automated tests?**: Yes
* **Has the fix been verified in Nightly?**: No
* **Needs manual test from QE?**: No
* **If yes, steps to reproduce**: 
* **List of other uplifts needed**: None
* **Risk to taking this patch**: Medium
* **Why is the change risky/not risky? (and alternatives if risky)**: It's just a bit large, and is rolling back patches which were initially applied over a month ago. The rollback was fairly clean, however, so I would be surprised but not completely shocked if there were issues. Given that it's just a change to a cache, though (i.e., it intends to be transparent), it seems rather unlikely that anything since this landed has come to depend on it. EDIT: the alternative, other than declining to do anything, is listed in comment 13, but I would wager that that alternative is a little bit more risky.
* **String changes made/needed**: None

Back to Bug 1656261 Comment 23