- User Since
- Jul 10 2014, 5:36 AM (271 w, 4 d)
Jul 25 2018
Jan 6 2017
Feb 2 2015
Jan 29 2015
Jan 16 2015
Yes, AFAICT, we just need a couple of regression tests, a bit more fleshed out docs and perhaps a name change of the extension, as suggested in the Trac ticket.
Jan 15 2015
LGTM, too. Please, could we land it in 7.10.1RC2 too?
Jan 13 2015
LGTM, but needs a rebase, which is not 100% trivial, and then I'd land it.
Jan 12 2015
I see the discussion now spans ghc-devs, the ticket *and* here. Perhaps it makes sense to move it back to ghc-devs so that others can more easily follow? Anyway, the new docs are a significant improvement already, so I'm accepting the revision.
Dec 27 2014
I can't tell if that covers all problems with eventlogs vs changing the number of capabilities and I haven't tested it, but it looks good. If it just passes the test described in the trac ticket and doesn't cause regression wrt the few tests in the ghc-events package, it's already a very useful fix, especially given its size. I will keep this fix in mind when triaging ghc-events and ThreadScope issues.
Nov 21 2014
A very shallow review, mainly looking for typos and stray hunks from rebase. I've found no obvious problems.
A very shallow review, mainly looking for typos and stray hunks from rebase and I've only found a trivial, benign one.
Nov 19 2014
I tried to land the patch, but it doesn't seem to apply cleanly to the current master. When you are done extending it, if you plan to any more, could you rebase it, too? Thank you.
Nov 18 2014
LGTM. Personally I don't see a need for more examples at least for the elementary operations from the patch. It's their generality, the type machinery behind them that is interesting and non-trivial, not their behaviour.