requiring me to modify a shell command every time I wanted to access one. On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 at 09:35:55 UTC+1 Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > Hi Jens, > > We understand that

deprecation warnings and then they pile up and we get warning fatigue. Also, do you have usage data? Use Counters or some other kind of upper limit on how many might be affected? /Daniel

no objections to the discussion points. I'll proceed as you > suggested. > Thanks! > > > - Yeonghan > > 2026년 3월 5일 목요일 AM 1시 28분 11초 UTC+9에 Philip Jägenstedt

Finch) to find real >> breakages that we may be missing. Further, disabling in >> Beta and Dev shortly after to get more data is also good. >> >> LGTM1 for the

now continuing to removal in M145, I landed a removal change before the branch point for M145 . On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 2:14 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > This makes a lot of sense, thanks. >

adding it to release notes. LGTM3 On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 9:41 AM Mike Taylor wrote: > Can you also request the Enterprise bit? I think they would probably want > this to appear in

Just wanted to ack the concerns again and will try to report back on any bumps along the way. On Sun, Nov 23, 2025 at 4:50 PM Rick Byers wrote: > LGTM3 to deprecate. > Yes I'm quite

> LGTM1 to carry on with deprecation in M144 and to remove in M150 IFF >> usage is lower than 0.0003% >> >> In case usage doesn't drop as M150 approaches, I expect

The changes to APIs at the Android level are outside the scope of this intent. As mentioned in this intent, Attribution-Reporting-Register-OS-* headers will no longer be processed

Protected Audience Intent to Deprecate > and Remove > , > Protected Audience features that were never launched beyond 20% Stable > will be ramped down by the end of 2025

> LGTM1 to deprecate. The plan to keep deprecation for 6 milestones > also sounds good. Please come back to this thread at a time when > you think the removal can proceed. Since

> > Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Protected Audience > > > Contact emails > > pauljensen@chromium.org > > > Explainer > > https://github

LGTM3 according to Vlad's plan. /Daniel On 2025-11-12 17:19, Chris Harrelson wrote: > LGTM2 with the same conditions Vlad mentioned. > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 8:16 AM

fallback seems to be acceptable /Daniel On 2025-11-10 01:45, Mike Taylor wrote: > > Ignoring rSAFor (which is handled in a different intent), from what I > can tell deprecating

you planning to ship? >> Joe Medley | Technical Writer, Chrome DevRel | jme...@google.com | >> 816-678-7195 <(816)%20678-7195> >> *If an API's not

> "Deprecate" means that the feature still works but using it shows a > deprecation warning in the DevTools console and kicks Reporting API. > > IMO, we should

> approval to remove.) >> > > Will do. And yeah I didn't think I needed LGTMs to deprecate, only to > remove, right? Akin to I2P not needing LGTM, but I2S needing

from M128 to M130. On Friday, February 28, 2025 at 8:05:49 PM UTC Mike Taylor wrote: > Just for the history books: how long was CHIPS disabled in WebView? 127 to > 130? > On 2/26

WebView team to proceed and will be > doing a gradual Finch rollout of the removal starting M133. Progress > will be tracked on this issue . > > Best, > Ayu > > On Monday

the "Intent to Deprecate" template from https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features/ without realizing it was not for "Intent to Deprecate and Remove

nobody seems to be calling them, it should be fine and 2 milestones should be enough to find deprecation warnings. LGTM3 On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 12:16 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM2 >

re going to clean up as soon as possible. Please disregard most sections of the email, the relevant bit is here: Reason this experiment is being extended We request to extend the origin

amend that to LGTM2 % filling out and request the Enterprise, > Debuggability, and Testing chips in chromestatus > > On 11/8/24 11:55 AM, Mike Taylor wrote: >> >

'll deprecate the method with `DeprecateAs` in the IDL file > 2. Then we'll add a blink runtime feature off by default that > hides the method with `RuntimeEnabled` to

>> and Testing in the chromestatus entry? Thanks! >>> >> On 8/26/24 12:40 PM, Mike Taylor wrote: >>> >> LGTM1 to remove - if there's no usage

Good to know. Thanks folks. On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 12:04 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > +1 - no approvals needed. :) > On 8/9/24 1:20 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote: > > If this method was

idea is to add `position-area` in M129, and deprecate (but not yet >>> remove) `inset-area` also in M129. And then ideally remove `inset-area` in >>> M131. Two

complete, to avoid related noise. On Wednesday, April 3, 2024 at 12:52:23 PM UTC+1 Noam Rosenthal wrote: > On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 3:12 PM Aaron Leventhal > wrote: > >>

We propose to block access to IP address 0.0.0.0 in advance of PNA >> completely rolling out. Chrome is deprecating direct access to private >> network endpoints from

too hard to catch the cause for the behavior change in the few sites that will be affected. Sounds good, I will keep the existing console message in there, at least for a while. On Wed, May