If we'd like to change the name of these lists so that they are more descriptive and consistent, given the new feature introduced in bug 1177085, now (before Sep 21st) would be a good time. Suggested changes: 1. mozpub-track-digest256 -> mozstd-track-digest256 2. mozpub-trackwhite-digest256 -> mozstd-trackwhite-digest256 Constraints: - both mozpub-track-digest256 and mozpub-trackwhite-digest256 must continue to be available on stage until the end of the diary study (Sep 18th) - mozpub-track-digest256 should be available in both stage and prod until ESR 38 is EOL My assumption is that making these changes at the same time as bug 1201741 will mean that there's not much extra work required. Is that true? There is some amount of risk with renaming mozpub-track-digest256 in the client since that has been in production for a long time, but that should be minimal since we're keeping the old name too. The other one (mozpub-trackwhite-digest256) has never been in production.
Created attachment 8661492 [details] [diff] [review] Nightly patch
Created attachment 8661494 [details] [diff] [review] Aurora patch
[Tracking Requested - why for this release]:
Comment on attachment 8661494 [details] [diff] [review] Aurora patch Approval Request Comment [Feature/regressing bug #]: TP list names have changed [User impact if declined]: TP will be stuck on the old legacy list (whitelist won't work). [Describe test coverage new/current, TreeHerder]: Manual tests [Risks and why]: Low, these new list names are what we used in the end-to-end tests. [String/UUID change made/needed]: None
Comment on attachment 8661494 [details] [diff] [review] Aurora patch Approved for uplift to aurora from discussion with Sylvestre and Erin