all prepare to ship approvals have been obtained. Going ahead w/ removal, thanks all! On Wed, Oct 14, 2026 at 11:19 AM Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > LGTM4 (to reflect my approval in the

requesting approval to proceed with the staged deprecation rollout: >> >> - 10% Stable: Hold for 2 weeks (through Oct 24) >> - 100% Stable: Target launch after Oct

has fallen to zero (everywhere except ChromeOS - and thats rolling out right now so we still have time to revert if necessary). LGTM and one should be sufficient given previous LGTMs

would like to request approval to proceed with the staged deprecation >> rollout: >> >> - 10% Stable: Hold for 2 weeks (through Oct 15) >> - 100% Stable: Target

I have to make a correction here since we misread the usage in > the dashboard. We are actually still seeing ~1% usage. Given > this new information, the revised plan for which we

been working to migrate off this tech over the last year. I know this has been a monumental headache, and I'm so grateful to everyone who suffered through it. Thanks, Mason On Wed

> LGTM2 to proceed with a flag and that shim linked from release notes. > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 12:05 PM Guido Urdaneta wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 16

would be to ship that new event and > see someone successfully migrate to it, and then do thedeprecation+removal. > If it's possible to gain confidence that migration is

across browsers and useful only for the small fraction of Chromium browser > users with 3PCs disabled, I believe the risk is low and also trust that you > and your team will respond

Protected Audience and Shared Storage removed, this API is no longer reachable. Thanks! On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 11:01 AM Daniel Bratell wrote: > If I understand you correctly, this

, wanted to share a brief update on our progress here. As noted in my original email, our target to remove Related Website Sets and requestStorageAccessFor was M150; but given that usage

are about to become 2 weeks each so I think 6 is actually not > excessive, while 3 is too tight. > > LGTM2 > > /Daniel > On 2026-05-13 09:30, Nidhi Jaju wrote: > >

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

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

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

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

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