Sorry for being slow to get to your patches.
No problem. I'm glad that someone is actually interested in that.
An overall comment: I am unconvinced about commit messages that details obvious changes for each impacted file.
Well, I agree. However, even obvious changes might be useful in the long term. The GNU Coding Standards, which I use as a guide, suggest the following: "Subsequent maintainers will often search for a function name to find all the change log entries that pertain to it..." [1] (For instance, cgit allows that.) It also helps when you're trying to fix bugs. Moreover, I often spot mistakes when I'm writing such messages.
Sometimes it's harder to write commit messages than code. So if you think that they are verbose, you're probably right.
The second patch removes a redundant function and adjusts some imports. (I wrote a version of 'splitByDelimiter' that uses 'B.breakSubstring' instead of 'B.findSubstrings'. Let me know if you want to keep 'splitByDelimiter', and I'll use that version.)
Redundant or unused? I don't see any changes other than removing the function.
Unused, right.
This single commit should probably be split in two, one saying "update imports to the new locations of internal GHC functions" and another one saying "remove the unused splitByDelimiter function".
Attached. Do you have any other comments?
[1] https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html#Style-of-Change-Logs