Created attachment 405345 [details]
Patch

<rdar://problem/66512789>

Adding a new channel for just one log point seems a bit excessive. Should this be a “UserEvents” log channel, for future logging of other kinds of events?

Also LOG_WITH_STREAM will give you more easily readable code.

(In reply to Simon Fraser (smfr) from comment #3)
> Adding a new channel for just one log point seems a bit excessive. Should
> this be a “UserEvents” log channel, for future logging of other kinds of
> events?

Hm.. I just followed the MouseEvents implementation which also have only three callers. Should we consolidate this later on?

> Also LOG_WITH_STREAM will give you more easily readable code.

Didn't know LOG_WITH_STREAM() macro, thanks.

I see this patch already reviewed from time ago, and seems ready to land.

Just a tip: next time you upload a patch pass this flag to the webkit-test-runner tool: "--request-commit" that way the reviewer knows he needs to set the cq+ flag for you. Otherwise he won't do that and the patch won't land.

Do you want me to set cq+ (so the patch lands)? or are you planning to upload a new version of the patch?

CheckingChecking via BugID, it seems this r+ patch didn't landed.

Do we need this anymore? Thanks!