--huq684BweRXVnRxX
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 10:18:53AM +0900, SASADA Koichi wrote:
> (2012/05/02 8:25), tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson) wrote:
> > I've attached a patch that adds dtrace probes to trunk.  If nobody obje=
cts, I will apply.
> >=20
> > The patch doesn't contain every probe I want, but I think it's in a goo=
d place to merge to trunk.  I can add more probes later. :)
>=20
> I don't make any objection.
>=20
> Let us clear.  Is that specification?  I mean, on 2.1 and later, "should
> keep same dtrace interface support?"  If we need keep interface, we need
> review carefully.

DTrace allows us to specify the stability of the probes.  I've declared
the provider name of "ruby" to be stable.  We don't declare any modules
or functions, so I've declared them as stable.  The probes (e.g.
function-entry), as well as the type and number of arguments to the
probes are declared as unstable, so users are advised not to depend on
them.

You can find the stability declarations here:

  https://github.com/tenderlove/ruby/blob/probes/probes.d#L26-30

I think declaring them unstable is the best conservative approach.  If
we find them to be good over the long term, we can change the stability
declaration in later releases of Ruby.

--=20
Aaron Patterson
http://tenderlovemaking.com/

--huq684BweRXVnRxX
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPoJ4QAAoJEJUxcLy0/6/GHqUH/393+u0HVmOPZau0tINO3qju
RItfi4gmMTJiKlvqajdGmmkxlCdSVn5obtB00ZEivqbCHrZ7tcQv9TSIieeQm0ei
zkx7A6J7v2Q5xsZlmttgT1y6BVvEuoO28VkBm1ilVSRC4IYckq6hl+Kh3Ta62iAJ
wPYXMvyeauk+FUvkL7q+f5599ypGlz+ELt45PIUMXsLMqtcjSLekDqDOk/40Mi+v
ABsDslxcHzGKntEuz3vav8wXpdlXsjdllvtHaLpzAD2rOzzkz7F+J5pnjiWUss7a
dXk8/Edii+myojV3YN8jp5ndeppFwDXk4ObjsGrFOs8ujJPfLODojLxRuLkr68A=
=CoUP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--huq684BweRXVnRxX--

On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 10:18:53AM +0900, SASADA Koichi wrote:
> (2012/05/02 8:25), tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson) wrote:
> > I've attached a patch that adds dtrace probes to trunk.  If nobody obje=
cts, I will apply.
> >=20
> > The patch doesn't contain every probe I want, but I think it's in a goo=
d place to merge to trunk.  I can add more probes later. :)
>=20
> I don't make any objection.
>=20
> Let us clear.  Is that specification?  I mean, on 2.1 and later, "should
> keep same dtrace interface support?"  If we need keep interface, we need
> review carefully.

DTrace allows us to specify the stability of the probes.  I've declared
the provider name of "ruby" to be stable.  We don't declare any modules
or functions, so I've declared them as stable.  The probes (e.g.
function-entry), as well as the type and number of arguments to the
probes are declared as unstable, so users are advised not to depend on
them.

You can find the stability declarations here:

  https://github.com/tenderlove/ruby/blob/probes/probes.d#L26-30

I think declaring them unstable is the best conservative approach.  If
we find them to be good over the long term, we can change the stability
declaration in later releases of Ruby.

--=20
Aaron Patterson
http://tenderlovemaking.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPoJ4QAAoJEJUxcLy0/6/GHqUH/393+u0HVmOPZau0tINO3qju
RItfi4gmMTJiKlvqajdGmmkxlCdSVn5obtB00ZEivqbCHrZ7tcQv9TSIieeQm0ei
zkx7A6J7v2Q5xsZlmttgT1y6BVvEuoO28VkBm1ilVSRC4IYckq6hl+Kh3Ta62iAJ
wPYXMvyeauk+FUvkL7q+f5599ypGlz+ELt45PIUMXsLMqtcjSLekDqDOk/40Mi+v
ABsDslxcHzGKntEuz3vav8wXpdlXsjdllvtHaLpzAD2rOzzkz7F+J5pnjiWUss7a
dXk8/Edii+myojV3YN8jp5ndeppFwDXk4ObjsGrFOs8ujJPfLODojLxRuLkr68A=
=CoUP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----