"Don't mind me guys, I'm barely boiling the frog."
Yes, because that's a such anti-consumer issue. It shouldn't exist in the first place, it should never be merged to master. There's no reason to not keep it on a separate branch if you don't intend to use it.
My point is that at some other company (e.g. Apple) it would be done in secret on a branch somewhere, then big-bang merged later.
Google's process doesn't tend to work that way.
And can we retire this inane content-less quip already?
Also I'm old enough that even my children aren't children anymore. How I would dearly love for your statement to be true.
We can add www to the list.
Don't underestimate how much money they have to burn and how incompetent upper management is at making hard decisions and planning.
In general Google engineers don't tend to work on branches, especially long-running ones. Incremental small code reviews are the expectation. The general process would be to stick things securely behind flags and continue development without turning it on, even if it never ever launches.
Not saying this work should be done -- it shouldn't -- but code being pushed is not the same as "we're going to make this happen tomorrow, no matter what."