4 ms·

This submission title does not appear to be accurate. Here's what was actually said: > October 9th 2024: an update on Manifest V2 phase-out. > Over the last f

by lapcat 2y ago

This submission title does not appear to be accurate. Here's what was actually said: > October 9th 2024: an update on Manifest V2 phase-out. > Over the last few months, we have continued with the Manifest V2 phase-out. Currently the chrome://extensions page displays a warning banner for all users of Manifest V2 extensions. Additionally, we have started disabling Manifest V2 extensions on pre-stable channels. > We will now begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable. This change will be slowly rolled out over the following weeks. Users will be directed to the Chrome Web Store, where they will be recommended Manifest V3 alternatives for their disabled extension. For a short time, users will still be able to turn their Manifest V2 extensions back on. Enterprises using the ExtensionManifestV2Availability policy will be exempt from any browser changes until June 2025. See our May 2024 blog for more context.

wtallis 2y ago
They said "we have started disabling Manifest V2 extensions on pre-stable channels", and the "Chrome canary" referenced in the submission title is a pre-stable channel. The submission title is accurate, but narrowly highlighting only one facet of Google's update statement.
- lapcat 2y ago
  That's old news, as noted in my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41810420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41810420 The change here is actually about the stable channel. Also, the title makes it sound like MV2 code has been removed from the source, but that's not the case.
  - wtallis 2y ago
    > That's old news, as noted in my other comment: None of your comments have actually provided evidence for this assertion, and the previous update dated June 3rd 2024 says users will start seeing a warning. So when between June 3 and October 9 did Google start actually disabling MV2 extensions, and where was it publicized prior to their October 9 update?
    - lapcat 2y ago
      > None of your comments have actually provided evidence for this assertion It's not an assertion. It's simple reading comprehension. How else can you interpret this? "Over the last few months, we have continued with the Manifest V2 phase-out. Currently the chrome://extensions page displays a warning banner for all users of Manifest V2 extensions. Additionally, we have started disabling Manifest V2 extensions on pre-stable channels. [paragraph break] We will now [emphasis mine] begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable." > So when between June 3 and October 9 did Google start actually disabling MV2 extensions, and where was it publicized prior to their October 9 update? I don't know if it was publicized, until now. After all, when did they publicize that there would be a warning in Chrome stable? But there is a warning in Chrome stable. That started happening some time before this announcement. Four months is a long gap between announcements.
      - wtallis 2y ago
        > I don't know if it was publicized, until now. So you literally don't know if it was news before now, but you're insisting on calling it "old news", apparently based solely on Google using past tense in their announcement.
        lapcat 2y ago
        > So you literally don't know if it was news before now, but you're insisting on calling it "old news" That was just a figure of speech, which I don't wish to quibble over. I don't insist on using that phrase. The point, from the beginning, is that the HN submission title is not good. It actually doesn't matter when exactly that Google began disabling MV2 extensions in Chrome canary, because what's the justification for focusing on canary in the submission title when the announcement says, "We will now begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"? [EDIT:] I see that the submission title has now indeed been changed, so this argument has become redundant.
  - EasyMark 2y ago
    But still it’s the first stab wound inflicted on CaesarMainline, he’s toast
freedomben 2y ago
The most relevant part is: > Additionally, we have started disabling Manifest V2 extensions on pre-stable channels. Title could have been a bit more broad (probably should say "pre-stable" instead of "canary"), but I would say it is inaccurate.
- lapcat 2y ago
  > The most relevant part is: That's actually not the most relevant part. The most relevant part is "We will now begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable. This change will be slowly rolled out over the following weeks." Google had already started disabling Manifest V2 extensions on pre-stable channels, prior to October 9. The first paragraph is "what we've been doing." The second paragraph is "what we'll do now."
dang 2y ago
Ok, I've replaced the title with that language from the article (shortened a bit to fit HN's 80 char title limit). Thanks! Submitted title was "Manifest v2 is now removed from Chrome canary"

by lapcat 2y ago

wtallis 2y ago

They said "we have started disabling Manifest V2 extensions on pre-stable channels", and the "Chrome canary" referenced in the submission title is a pre-stable channel. The submission title is accurate, but narrowly highlighting only one facet of Google's update statement.

lapcat 2y ago
That's old news, as noted in my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41810420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41810420 The change here is actually about the stable channel. Also, the title makes it sound like MV2 code has been removed from the source, but that's not the case.
- wtallis 2y ago
  > That's old news, as noted in my other comment: None of your comments have actually provided evidence for this assertion, and the previous update dated June 3rd 2024 says users will start seeing a warning. So when between June 3 and October 9 did Google start actually disabling MV2 extensions, and where was it publicized prior to their October 9 update?
  - lapcat 2y ago
    > None of your comments have actually provided evidence for this assertion It's not an assertion. It's simple reading comprehension. How else can you interpret this? "Over the last few months, we have continued with the Manifest V2 phase-out. Currently the chrome://extensions page displays a warning banner for all users of Manifest V2 extensions. Additionally, we have started disabling Manifest V2 extensions on pre-stable channels. [paragraph break] We will now [emphasis mine] begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable." > So when between June 3 and October 9 did Google start actually disabling MV2 extensions, and where was it publicized prior to their October 9 update? I don't know if it was publicized, until now. After all, when did they publicize that there would be a warning in Chrome stable? But there is a warning in Chrome stable. That started happening some time before this announcement. Four months is a long gap between announcements.
    - wtallis 2y ago
      > I don't know if it was publicized, until now. So you literally don't know if it was news before now, but you're insisting on calling it "old news", apparently based solely on Google using past tense in their announcement.
      - lapcat 2y ago
        > So you literally don't know if it was news before now, but you're insisting on calling it "old news" That was just a figure of speech, which I don't wish to quibble over. I don't insist on using that phrase. The point, from the beginning, is that the HN submission title is not good. It actually doesn't matter when exactly that Google began disabling MV2 extensions in Chrome canary, because what's the justification for focusing on canary in the submission title when the announcement says, "We will now begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable"? [EDIT:] I see that the submission title has now indeed been changed, so this argument has become redundant.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  But still it’s the first stab wound inflicted on CaesarMainline, he’s toast

freedomben 2y ago

The most relevant part is: > Additionally, we have started disabling Manifest V2 extensions on pre-stable channels. Title could have been a bit more broad (probably should say "pre-stable" instead of "canary"), but I would say it is inaccurate.

lapcat 2y ago
> The most relevant part is: That's actually not the most relevant part. The most relevant part is "We will now begin disabling installed extensions still using Manifest V2 in Chrome stable. This change will be slowly rolled out over the following weeks." Google had already started disabling Manifest V2 extensions on pre-stable channels, prior to October 9. The first paragraph is "what we've been doing." The second paragraph is "what we'll do now."

dang 2y ago

Ok, I've replaced the title with that language from the article (shortened a bit to fit HN's 80 char title limit). Thanks! Submitted title was "Manifest v2 is now removed from Chrome canary"