EDIT: Will go ahead and write the migration. The previous time all staff had logged out/back in for another reason as a coincidence so it wasn't necessary, but migration will be less disruptive than asking staff to re-auth.

What is the downside of making this diff a draft instead of marking its title with a label?

In D11099#320649, @tomek wrote:

What is the downside of making this diff a draft instead of marking its title with a label?

Would that still make the diff viewable to reviewers?

Was mostly to show a usage of D11095 and D11097 even though testing wasn't complete. Will avoid [DRAFT] in commit name in future and write something more specific in Summary instead.

In D11099#321944, @atul wrote:

In D11099#320649, @tomek wrote:

What is the downside of making this diff a draft instead of marking its title with a label?

Would that still make the diff viewable to reviewers?

Yes, a draft is visible and can be linked and accessed just like a normal diff. The only difference is that it doesn't appear in any queue.

Will avoid [DRAFT] in commit name in future and write something more specific in Summary instead.

I think it is OK to have a diff that shows e.g. the usage. My concern was about the fact that the diff was appearing in a couple of queues without any need - it wasn't actionable.

Safe to land, persist.version will get bumped when flip the switch lands.