The following revision refers to this bug:
  https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/41c7aecaa01051ca0262ad0241d2558393fe68ba

commit 41c7aecaa01051ca0262ad0241d2558393fe68ba
Author: Nicolas Ouellet-payeur <nicolaso@chromium.org>
Date: Tue Nov 13 16:46:37 2018

Mark BrowserSwitcherUseIeSitelist policy Windows-only

Bug:  904840 
Change-Id: I49876ee13a190b0b257197d31cd93230778a0e08
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/1311079
Commit-Queue: Nicolas Ouellet-Payeur <nicolaso@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Julian Pastarmov <pastarmovj@chromium.org>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#607616}
[modify] https://crrev.com/41c7aecaa01051ca0262ad0241d2558393fe68ba/components/policy/resources/policy_templates.json

Requesting a merge into M71

Before we approve merge to M71, please answer followings:
* Is this M71 regression? Is it critical?
* Is the change well baked/verified in Canary, having enough automation tests coverage and safe to merge to M71? (The change is not in canary yet as it landed 4 hrs back)
* Any other important details to justify the merge.
Please note M71 is already in Beta, so merge bar is very high. Thank you.

Also is this require a string change? If yes, it is too late for M71. 

> Is this M71 regression?

The new policy that's buggy was introduced in M71.

> Is it critical?

No, but it is just a documentation change. It is low-risk (single line change), and can help avoid confusion for admins.

> Is the change well baked/verified in Canary, having enough automation tests coverage and safe to merge to M71?

It's not landed in Canary yet, and there are no automated tests for this. It's still low-risk, since it mostly affects documentation, and is for a feature that  only affects a small subset of users.

Approving merge to M71 branch 3578 based on comment #5. 

Ah, that was my mistake. It looks like the bug was introduced in M72, not M71. So, there's no need for a merge after all, it looks like. :-)

Rejecting merge to M71 based on comment #7. Thank you.