On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 11:05 AM Yoav Weiss <yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 10:46 AM Philip Jägenstedt <foo...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >> To simplify and keep this moving, I've filed >> https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/759 as an umbrella >> issue for anything URL in Interop 2023. >> >> My view is that we can't improve our risk assessment of this by much with >> metrics, because we can't distinguish between harmless and serious breakage. >> > > Metrics can give us an upper bound, as well as a pile of examples that one > can then manually sample and assess breakage. > > >> Instead what we should do is take some comfort in the fact that the >> behavior is already shipping in Safari, try to ship it and revert at the >> first sign of trouble to evaluate. >> > > Those are not contradictory. E.g. we could add metrics (+UKM) and a flag, > and then be alert for bug reports from Beta, as well as randomly examine > sites that touch the relevant usecounters and see if they were broken. > Would that work from your perspective? > Is the suggestion to do the same as in https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4252309 (for Intent to Ship: Port overflow check in URL setters <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/xsITedSTDnM/m/ANFrwCN0BgAJ>) to add the use counter but not wait for data before trying to ship this? That would work for me if Jiacheng thinks it's reasonable in this case. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAARdPYfVUT8iG7s6rXs7HEA7g017p6S-bBO%3DiNDV8DkPqPH68Q%40mail.gmail.com.
