{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/apitrace/apitrace/issues/382","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/apitrace/apitrace/issues/382/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/apitrace/apitrace/issues/382/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/apitrace/apitrace/issues/382/events","html_url":"https://github.com/apitrace/apitrace/pull/382","id":103354504,"number":382,"title":"Improving profiling capabilities of glretrace.","user":{"login":"trtt","id":1929414,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1929414?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/trtt","html_url":"https://github.com/trtt","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/trtt/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/trtt/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/trtt/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/trtt/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/trtt/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/trtt/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/trtt/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/trtt/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/trtt/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":10,"created_at":"2015-08-26T20:11:50Z","updated_at":"2016-01-05T13:19:22Z","closed_at":null,"pull_request":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/apitrace/apitrace/pulls/382","html_url":"https://github.com/apitrace/apitrace/pull/382","diff_url":"https://github.com/apitrace/apitrace/pull/382.diff","patch_url":"https://github.com/apitrace/apitrace/pull/382.patch"},"body":"This was done as a part of my GSoC summer project.\r\nHere is somewhat detailed description of the changes:\r\nhttps://github.com/trtt/apitrace/wiki/Description\r\n\r\nI am sure there is a lot to be improved. Looking forward to receiving some feedback.\r\n"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/apitrace/apitrace/issues/comments/168995534","html_url":"https://github.com/apitrace/apitrace/pull/382#issuecomment-168995534","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/apitrace/apitrace/issues/382","id":168995534,"user":{"login":"jrfonseca","id":140183,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/140183?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/jrfonseca","html_url":"https://github.com/jrfonseca","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jrfonseca/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jrfonseca/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jrfonseca/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jrfonseca/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jrfonseca/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jrfonseca/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jrfonseca/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jrfonseca/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jrfonseca/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-01-05T13:19:22Z","updated_at":"2016-01-05T13:19:22Z","body":"As explained in https://github.com/trtt/apitrace/commit/136411b993a1631260c553de8bc9a9102398bca6#commitcomment-15264358 I don't feel I can maintain multiple passes going forward, so I can't merge this as is.\r\n\r\n> To do it in multiple runs (process runs) some kind of shared memory is required (for keeping backend states and data). Something like Boost::Interprocess, so that it also works consistently on all platforms. Do you know what can be used here in Apitrace?\r\n\r\nNo shared memory is necessary -- each pass can ran independently, and then data merged separately.\r\n\r\nBut honestly, I think it should be OK to have the end-user to select a manageable subset of counters, instead of trying to give the illusion we can cope with an arbitrary number of counters at the expense of high complexity in apitrace.   It would be already a big improvement.\r\n\r\n\r\nI tried to yank out the multiple pass support myself, but it's tightly rooted all over the place.  I'm afraid it would take more time I can afford to.\r\n\r\nAs it stands I don't plan to do any more work on this pull request.  If there's still somebody willing to do the work I'll merge it.  Otherwise I'll have to close it.\r\n\r\n\r\nI'm sorry things turned this way.  But to be perfectly honest, this is the likely outcome when such complex features are developed with no attempt to keep maintainer in the loop.  I strongly wished this GSoC would be a success so there would be more in the future but I was deceiving myself.  There were already several pull requests in the past where I sort of closed a blind eye then regretted, because code/feature just silently rots, then I get bug reports.  So I don't want to do that anymore."}}