On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Lluís Vilanova <vilan...@ac.upc.edu> wrote: > Stefan Hajnoczi writes: > >> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 07:12:46PM +0200, Lluís Vilanova wrote: >>> Stefan Hajnoczi writes: >>> > Only one point: please don't introduce PUBLIC yet. Let's add it when >>> > it's needed. At the moment nothing uses it. >>> >>> > I have tested this series with all backends and looked at the diff >>> > between the old tracetool and tracetool.py. >>> >>> > I'm happy with this series. We need to test it hard for 1.1 to make >>> > sure there are no hickups for tracing users. >>> >>> Sure. I'll send v4 without the PUBLIC-related contents and turning "kwargs" >>> into >>> specific arguments. >>> >>> Once accepted, I'll send the first two batches of changes in my queue, >>> which are >>> orthogonal to instrumentation (basically tracing cleanups in both the build >>> and >>> the API). >>> >>> I suppose everyone prefers to wait until after the 1.1 release to start >>> having a >>> look at instrumentation (which I still have to port to this new tracetool). > >> Great. I'd like to merge the Python tracetool for 1.1. I've diffed the >> generated code and it appears compatible with the shell tracetool >> output. Therefore I'm pretty confident with this series. > >> Future series will not make it into 1.1 just because we're running out >> of time to review and test. > > Do you mean future versions of this series (e.g., v5) or just other series?
Just other series :). I would definitely like to get this one in for 1.1. Stefan
