[Wireshark-dev] Proposed Gerrit workflow (was: Re: Notes from Sharkfest '13)
Hi All, 2013/6/21 Marc Petit-Huguenin m...@petit-huguenin.org: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/20/2013 04:52 PM, Guy Harris wrote: On Jun 20, 2013, at 2:58 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin m...@petit-huguenin.org wrote: On 06/20/2013 02:17 PM, Gerald Combs wrote: Advantates: - I'm not sure that an in-house equivalent (e.g. Gerrit plus a private repository) would be better than what Github offers. Yes, Gerrit is better than github: Presumably you mean Gerrit plus a private repository is better than github, as Gerrit, as far as I can tell, is just software that works with a Git repository. Yes, although managing repositories being what Gerrit do, Gerrit without a least one repository would be a very boring application. :-) I have started describing a Gerrit based workflow which IMO would fit to the project at http://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/Workflow . Please check it and share your opinion. Cheers, Balint ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-dev] How to customized FT_ABSOLUTE_TIME
Hi, I need more information about FT_ABSOLUTE_TIME. I have a 32-bits field matches a UTC time with a small peculiarity. I'd like to map the 0x value to Now string. Fabio. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wireshark-dev] How to customized FT_ABSOLUTE_TIME
You could use a BASE_CUSTOM field, though that might be a bit overkill for this situation. I'm not sure what other options are available. Evan On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Fabio Tarabelloni fabio.tarabell...@reloc.it wrote: Hi, I need more information about FT_ABSOLUTE_TIME. I have a 32-bits field matches a UTC time with a small peculiarity. I'd like to map the 0x value to Now string. Fabio. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wireshark-dev] [Wireshark-commits] buildbot failure in Wireshark (development) on Windows-XP-x86
Running ./wmem_test --verbose --seed=R02S7c3c1e743f8aa20695f4377c8b1c40c8 Should produce exactly the same run (with the same output and hopefully the same crash) as the buildbot saw. On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Graham Bloice graham.blo...@trihedral.com wrote: OK for me also on XP x32, although I'm not sure how to feed in the seed from the failing test run. Graham On 20 June 2013 16:56, Pascal Quantin pascal.quan...@gmail.com wrote: Failed to reproduce it on my side also, but I was running on Windows 7 x64. I will not have access to my XP x32 box before I go back home in 2 days. Regards, Pascal. 2013/6/21 Evan Huus eapa...@gmail.com I am unable to reproduce even with the random seed listed in the output (./wmem_test --seed=R02S7c3c1e743f8aa20695f4377c8b1c40c8). Valgrind shows no errors. Is anybody else seeing misbehaviour here? Thanks, Evan On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 4:40 PM, buildbot-no-re...@wireshark.org wrote: The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder Windows-XP-x86 while building Wireshark (development). Full details are available at: http://buildbot.wireshark.org/trunk/builders/Windows-XP-x86/builds/5505 Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.wireshark.org/trunk/ Buildslave for this Build: windows-xp-x86 Build Reason: scheduler Build Source Stamp: 50091 Blamelist: eapache,martink,pascal BUILD FAILED: failed test.sh sincerely, -The Buildbot ___ Sent via:Wireshark-commits mailing list wireshark-comm...@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-commits Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-commits mailto:wireshark-commits-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wireshark-dev] Proposed Gerrit workflow (was: Re: Notes from Sharkfest '13)
Thus wrote Bálint Réczey (bal...@balintreczey.hu): I have started describing a Gerrit based workflow which IMO would fit to the project at http://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/Workflow . Please check it and share your opinion. would that mean that even the most basic change needs peer review and approval based on the process defined by gerrit? I'm a bit worried that this doubles the time for such simple changes. I often see this in corporate environments where people don't correct typos, misleading variable names, formatting etc. because they can't be bothered with the administrative overhead. Regards, Martin ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wireshark-dev] using C++, was: Notes from Sharkfest '13
The problem really boils down to how objects are destroyed. In C, you simply call free(). In C++, you have to: - check if there are any complete class instances contained in your class, and recursively destroy them - check the vtable and call the appropriate destructor functions (more than one when doing inheritance) - call free() When you have multiple objects sequentially in memory in C, you can just free() the whole block and be done with it - this is why emem (and now wmem) block allocation provides such a performance boost. In C++ you still have to recursively destroy members and call destructor functions on each individual object (though you can then theoretically just free() the whole block at that point). Quick performance note from my wmem testing: when allocating 1024 blocks of memory, then batch-freeing them all (which should more or less represent the usage pattern in our dissectors) the wmem block allocator performs about 10x faster than g_malloc/g_free, which are themselves slightly faster than raw malloc/free. You can cheat and ignore the complex requirements for C++ objects only if they are POD (Plain Old Data) types, but this limits their usefulness (no virtual functions, no non-POD members, no destructors, etc). Specifically, none of the STL containers are POD. On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 1:38 PM, ronnie sahlberg ronniesahlb...@gmail.com wrote: Technically you could use smart pointers, or other types too. But beware the performance impact, and do get numbers before changing. Ethereal/Wireshark does an enormous amount of small allocations and frees. One of my primary goals when we added the first emem allocators were performance. Make it very cheap, near zero cost for both allocations and free, especially for a lot of small shortlived allocations. This is important especially if you have really big captures where the original malloc()/free() real allocators became impossibly slow. On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Dirk Jagdmann d...@cubic.org wrote: C++. It snuck in with Qt. Should we allow C++ in the rest of the code or at least use C++ compilation everywhere? A tough call. If we go C++ we should have a plan to use the STL classes with our concept of memory (allocator scope). I've started a short discussion last year, but somebody found out, that using STL objects on the heap with the C++ allocators doesn't have the same semantics (and really doesn't work) with our packet or file lifetime scopes. However a second approach with C++ objects managed by smart pointers and those smart pointers being aware of the packet/file/application lifetime might work. We should research this, write guidelines how to use C++ objects in Wireshark and then make a decision if we want to allow C++ features everywhere. Another advantage would be that we can use real C++ exceptions. Yes please :) -- --- Dirk Jagdmann http://cubic.org/~doj - http://llg.cubic.org ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wireshark-dev] How to customized FT_ABSOLUTE_TIME
I can't use BASE_CUSTOM with FT_ABSOLUTE_TIME field because the compiler returns this error: Err Field 'UTC Time' has a 'strings' value but is of type FT_ABSOLUTE_TIME (which is not allowed to have strings) So I think I have to set a FT_UINT32 with BASE_CUSTOM and decode function but I don't know how to disply UTC string like Jan 1, 1970 00:59:59.0. Is there a wireshark function makes that? Fabio. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wireshark-dev] [Wireshark-commits] buildbot failure in Wireshark (development) on Windows-XP-x86
Hi Evan, I could not reproduce it either on my Windows XP box. Regards, Pascal. 2013/6/22 Evan Huus eapa...@gmail.com Running ./wmem_test --verbose --seed=R02S7c3c1e743f8aa20695f4377c8b1c40c8 Should produce exactly the same run (with the same output and hopefully the same crash) as the buildbot saw. On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Graham Bloice graham.blo...@trihedral.com wrote: OK for me also on XP x32, although I'm not sure how to feed in the seed from the failing test run. Graham On 20 June 2013 16:56, Pascal Quantin pascal.quan...@gmail.com wrote: Failed to reproduce it on my side also, but I was running on Windows 7 x64. I will not have access to my XP x32 box before I go back home in 2 days. Regards, Pascal. 2013/6/21 Evan Huus eapa...@gmail.com I am unable to reproduce even with the random seed listed in the output (./wmem_test --seed=R02S7c3c1e743f8aa20695f4377c8b1c40c8). Valgrind shows no errors. Is anybody else seeing misbehaviour here? Thanks, Evan On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 4:40 PM, buildbot-no-re...@wireshark.org wrote: The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder Windows-XP-x86 while building Wireshark (development). Full details are available at: http://buildbot.wireshark.org/trunk/builders/Windows-XP-x86/builds/5505 Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.wireshark.org/trunk/ Buildslave for this Build: windows-xp-x86 Build Reason: scheduler Build Source Stamp: 50091 Blamelist: eapache,martink,pascal BUILD FAILED: failed test.sh sincerely, -The Buildbot ___ Sent via:Wireshark-commits mailing list wireshark-comm...@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-commits Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-commits mailto:wireshark-commits-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org ?subject=unsubscribe ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org ?subject=unsubscribe ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wireshark-dev] Notes from Sharkfest '13
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/20/2013 02:58 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote: On 06/20/2013 02:17 PM, Gerald Combs wrote: The following subjects came up during developer discussions at Sharkfest this year: [...] Git (cue ominous music). I managed to install SubGit (a bidirectional Git ↔ SVN gateway) a few months ago. It seems very nice but I wasn't crazy about the idea of managing our current repository count times two. I think we should just switch over to Git in the near term but I'd like to hear everyone's opinion on this. If you would be severly impacted by moving to Git please respond to the list or let me know privately. Otherwise I'll start planning the switch for later this summer. Moving to Github. Assuming we switch to Git it would be possible to host the official repository at Github. Advantates: - I'm not sure that an in-house equivalent (e.g. Gerrit plus a private repository) would be better than what Github offers. Yes, Gerrit is better than github: http://julien.danjou.info/blog/2013/rant-about-github-pull-request-workflow-implementation An additional argument for Gerrit which is not in Danjou's rant is that Gerrit's way of doing things helps with bisection: Because rebasing is a PITA in github, pull-requests are fixed (e.g. after a peer review) by adding more commits on top of the existing commits, which is bad for bisecting, as all the broken commits are still visible in the history. On the other hand Gerrit help having a very clean history, very close to what is achieved in the Linux kernel by using git send-email. Bonus: The integration with Jenkins for automatic build when a patchset is uploaded for review. Second bonus: Gerrit 2.6, which was released yesterday, have a complete RESTful API. That was one advantage github had until now (my experience with github is that at the end, you do most of the work using curl and the RESTful API). - -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Email: m...@petit-huguenin.org Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJRxccyAAoJECnERZXWan7EFIMQAOAmGIWlqiWfgCuAz/8jPWWu 4eYj0OexXOzuoj46SIvDpVdMKPntUDH/179Okk3efYEwXp061723DbMX0HqAyJ4Z 0e/ycM754ODbvszzIDaOdclNY9IPBLS9ojBHk7tF6OnGXDjPXs8Osh4irMrDNk5x j/dCyDjeb4UBx+E44uCCPNam77IvnbX9N5ng3WGt3T9YyJck+mj9HmPMCE6H/7am MwCzh0fYw2RTahdyAKpO997tq1+GVIjoFZbIUEX+mbSiP/Rms7IPyNhksbgpfwIl qfP7qI/mqJRNctOKt6Sh2l9cyo+44j9gkRjixK/LD0GEzINK+Tn/gAkXUisT1zOL q/uwWqnA1hwaP3ZdoG30akwXgLybiSRQZefqmuNgLN3pQewlTrnw9ZS9fB9j7ttr e/0FY3CR6Xmb6LO2gsg42vqydNB0RSl7QY9N2nPJRg0X8DLm0DrD7adkbP0G9Q+o xzV+I0Q6QzGCti9+PJpK29zWzElpMFEpS4b7xZxq/4vWC8kCDpZk58JM/FGhE/QM cezrMdOKmoZZfBFvwiuZf/Y0TszHjAEIWb1nGi6s8znXqrdO16iOUmAf5neQlnx0 BfftJ+xOz7qtag0l4MrSzOfiGYqJg75LpWFphWo6NlBNHd/QgbFWD9lBKgd160r3 +tDqO6alk7+d4jgI9mxj =vCHf -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wireshark-dev] How to customized FT_ABSOLUTE_TIME
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Fabio Tarabelloni fabio.tarabell...@reloc.it wrote: I can't use BASE_CUSTOM with FT_ABSOLUTE_TIME field because the compiler returns this error: Err Field 'UTC Time' has a 'strings' value but is of type FT_ABSOLUTE_TIME (which is not allowed to have strings) So I think I have to set a FT_UINT32 with BASE_CUSTOM and decode function but I don't know how to disply UTC string like Jan 1, 1970 00:59:59.0. Is there a wireshark function makes that? There are a number of time-related functions in epan/to_str.[c|h] though I'm afraid I'm not sure which one of them you need. Evan ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wireshark-dev] [Wireshark-commits] buildbot failure in Wireshark (development) on Windows-XP-x86
Thanks for testing it, this is very odd... On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Pascal Quantin pascal.quan...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Evan, I could not reproduce it either on my Windows XP box. Regards, Pascal. 2013/6/22 Evan Huus eapa...@gmail.com Running ./wmem_test --verbose --seed=R02S7c3c1e743f8aa20695f4377c8b1c40c8 Should produce exactly the same run (with the same output and hopefully the same crash) as the buildbot saw. On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Graham Bloice graham.blo...@trihedral.com wrote: OK for me also on XP x32, although I'm not sure how to feed in the seed from the failing test run. Graham On 20 June 2013 16:56, Pascal Quantin pascal.quan...@gmail.com wrote: Failed to reproduce it on my side also, but I was running on Windows 7 x64. I will not have access to my XP x32 box before I go back home in 2 days. Regards, Pascal. 2013/6/21 Evan Huus eapa...@gmail.com I am unable to reproduce even with the random seed listed in the output (./wmem_test --seed=R02S7c3c1e743f8aa20695f4377c8b1c40c8). Valgrind shows no errors. Is anybody else seeing misbehaviour here? Thanks, Evan On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 4:40 PM, buildbot-no-re...@wireshark.org wrote: The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder Windows-XP-x86 while building Wireshark (development). Full details are available at: http://buildbot.wireshark.org/trunk/builders/Windows-XP-x86/builds/5505 Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.wireshark.org/trunk/ Buildslave for this Build: windows-xp-x86 Build Reason: scheduler Build Source Stamp: 50091 Blamelist: eapache,martink,pascal BUILD FAILED: failed test.sh sincerely, -The Buildbot ___ Sent via:Wireshark-commits mailing list wireshark-comm...@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-commits Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-commits mailto:wireshark-commits-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wireshark-dev] Proposed Gerrit workflow (was: Re: Notes from Sharkfest '13)
Hi Martin, 2013/6/22 Martin Kaiser li...@kaiser.cx: Thus wrote Bálint Réczey (bal...@balintreczey.hu): I have started describing a Gerrit based workflow which IMO would fit to the project at http://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/Workflow . Please check it and share your opinion. would that mean that even the most basic change needs peer review and approval based on the process defined by gerrit? I'm a bit worried that this doubles the time for such simple changes. I often see this in corporate environments where people don't correct typos, misleading variable names, formatting etc. because they can't be bothered with the administrative overhead. I think it depends on the people involved. In an environment similar to what you described I collected several small changes in short reviewable commits and asked for peer review for the set together. We can relax the rules for Core Developers to let them bypass the peer review, but I did not want to include this exception in the first proposal. Speaking of myself I would be OK with requiring peer review for all my commits, but it is not a surprise since I wrote the first version of the proposal. ;-) What I'm really looking forward to in the proposed Gerrit work-flow is the ability of having my changes tested on architectures I don't use _before_ applying them to the main branch. Cheers, Balint ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wireshark-dev] Proposed Gerrit workflow (was: Re: Notes from Sharkfest '13)
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Bálint Réczey bal...@balintreczey.hu wrote: Hi Martin, 2013/6/22 Martin Kaiser li...@kaiser.cx: Thus wrote Bálint Réczey (bal...@balintreczey.hu): I have started describing a Gerrit based workflow which IMO would fit to the project at http://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/Workflow . Please check it and share your opinion. would that mean that even the most basic change needs peer review and approval based on the process defined by gerrit? I'm a bit worried that this doubles the time for such simple changes. I often see this in corporate environments where people don't correct typos, misleading variable names, formatting etc. because they can't be bothered with the administrative overhead. I think it depends on the people involved. In an environment similar to what you described I collected several small changes in short reviewable commits and asked for peer review for the set together. We can relax the rules for Core Developers to let them bypass the peer review, but I did not want to include this exception in the first proposal. Speaking of myself I would be OK with requiring peer review for all my commits, but it is not a surprise since I wrote the first version of the proposal. ;-) I think to start it would be good if core could bypass peer review (assuming the builds/tests passed of course), just so we don't change the workflow too much at once. After people are used to that maybe we can look at requiring peer-review again, but not for a while. And of course if it's a big change you don't have to bypass peer-review, you can use Gerrit it you want feedback (which will be much nicer than trying to read the patches on Bugzilla). What I'm really looking forward to in the proposed Gerrit work-flow is the ability of having my changes tested on architectures I don't use _before_ applying them to the main branch. +1 --- One of the concerns Gerald raised at Sharkfest was that self-hosted Git and Gerrit and potentially Jenkins is a *lot* more infrastructure for him to maintain than simply a GitHub repo. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wireshark-dev] Proposed Gerrit workflow (was: Re: Notes from Sharkfest '13)
Hi Balint, Thus wrote Bálint Réczey (bal...@balintreczey.hu): We can relax the rules for Core Developers to let them bypass the peer review, but I did not want to include this exception in the first proposal. Speaking of myself I would be OK with requiring peer review for all my commits, but it is not a surprise since I wrote the first version of the proposal. ;-) I'd be in favour of a solution where core developers can decide to bypass the review for trivial changes. This encourages people to do cleanups straight away. Reviewing complex changes is certainly necessary and it looks like gerrit makes this easier than bugzilla/mails. What I'm really looking forward to in the proposed Gerrit work-flow is the ability of having my changes tested on architectures I don't use _before_ applying them to the main branch. That is definitely an improvement. Regards, Martin ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wireshark-dev] Proposed Gerrit workflow (was: Re: Notes from Sharkfest '13)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/22/2013 03:47 AM, Bálint Réczey wrote: Hi All, 2013/6/21 Marc Petit-Huguenin m...@petit-huguenin.org: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/20/2013 04:52 PM, Guy Harris wrote: On Jun 20, 2013, at 2:58 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin m...@petit-huguenin.org wrote: On 06/20/2013 02:17 PM, Gerald Combs wrote: Advantates: - I'm not sure that an in-house equivalent (e.g. Gerrit plus a private repository) would be better than what Github offers. Yes, Gerrit is better than github: Presumably you mean Gerrit plus a private repository is better than github, as Gerrit, as far as I can tell, is just software that works with a Git repository. Yes, although managing repositories being what Gerrit do, Gerrit without a least one repository would be a very boring application. :-) I have started describing a Gerrit based workflow which IMO would fit to the project at http://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/Workflow . Please check it and share your opinion. Code is building and tests are passing on all platforms. (Tests automatically start when at least one Core Developer gives +1 or +2 to prevent overloading or cracking the build servers.) Why do not build and test all patchsets submitted? Is that a limitation of the build servers? Having Jenkins automatically verify your patchset is IMO one of the nice feature of Gerrit, and it will lower the workload of core devs if building and testing are done before they start looking at the patchset. For people not familiar with the integration between Gerrit and Jenkins: http://vimeo.com/20084957 - -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Email: m...@petit-huguenin.org Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJRxc7jAAoJECnERZXWan7EcvoP/RbMse9RCPwEHVuSe8zmCQcC g8esGPykMTBkY13h8HWgMwU8KPYzIKIiRabyu6KdRkQLBT0EbtT7GwBbztQ9T0xZ x6ciLGfrwzd0MWZbppgp75Lkg0M8dg1d/EcjWbCTLJ5WxHyTjx4LThfJfiinH79M +bDgopEC7bOgZXaiL00b+2P3DYts6qxNPpWX6AGzrIQhasZM2nrcBFKQQ21Krvqy nRoPXLXfsX2dLU82vmRKVRRcciyaKzaMaEqLJPSUCb+u5oBL2eoFO1oAH3cXMhjr EytYAE6mJwRU39ESfA4w2qaRLMv+HzAtUIH352KF+b3w8Vi0nTj+YdJG6DLjqMhM yg73MPINxu0hvH6SqIeUPYLZbiTmswuOD+l69zhbQcOrQwW0hNdB0B37zvhSLuRI zgJX1WInc3SY5O/1Xy/lW+7oX13FIYfb4vCm71jIMuzztV+3tXG550d6r51qrAdm Iqnu0leOo3jwdk/UvNsBDu8ZpEz+0y7dadXxZc1oU8wfOxxDL1kuUsD8Xhicegfr fnFdWmrhJ7L+lyKAw13d1uvb8e0Ah19NffxKUP89YpA+oiU4f/fPjO0JlnHwi8s5 K+VRv0Tr2LIivoCLJDSdhINsQPy3sHNVXfIFuzz0ujW3i8HiJk2W8ikhemcvJIkN NZyAox8DPhIr8zdld4q8 =zSRl -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wireshark-dev] Proposed Gerrit workflow (was: Re: Notes from Sharkfest '13)
Hi Marc, 2013/6/22 Marc Petit-Huguenin m...@petit-huguenin.org: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/22/2013 03:47 AM, Bálint Réczey wrote: Hi All, 2013/6/21 Marc Petit-Huguenin m...@petit-huguenin.org: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/20/2013 04:52 PM, Guy Harris wrote: On Jun 20, 2013, at 2:58 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin m...@petit-huguenin.org wrote: On 06/20/2013 02:17 PM, Gerald Combs wrote: Advantates: - I'm not sure that an in-house equivalent (e.g. Gerrit plus a private repository) would be better than what Github offers. Yes, Gerrit is better than github: Presumably you mean Gerrit plus a private repository is better than github, as Gerrit, as far as I can tell, is just software that works with a Git repository. Yes, although managing repositories being what Gerrit do, Gerrit without a least one repository would be a very boring application. :-) I have started describing a Gerrit based workflow which IMO would fit to the project at http://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/Workflow . Please check it and share your opinion. Code is building and tests are passing on all platforms. (Tests automatically start when at least one Core Developer gives +1 or +2 to prevent overloading or cracking the build servers.) Why do not build and test all patchsets submitted? Is that a limitation of the build servers? Having Jenkins automatically verify your patchset is IMO one of the nice feature of Gerrit, and it will lower the workload of core devs if building and testing are done before they start looking at the patchset. Build can be triggered by patchset submissin, too, but it would require more build server resources. Usually not the first version of the changeset will be accepted especially from new contributors and this means more builds. Note that Core Developers would not have to wait since they can give +1 for their own changesets. The other reason behind requiring a +1 from someone we trust is that otherwise it would be easy to prepare a changeset which does unspeakable things to the build servers which we don't want to happen. Without requiring +1 we would have to prepare build systems to cope with malicious commits. I would be fine with both options, but in the first proposal I preferred to avoid having to harden the build systems. Cheers, Balint ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wireshark-dev] Proposed Gerrit workflow (was: Re: Notes from Sharkfest '13)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/22/2013 09:43 AM, Bálint Réczey wrote: Hi Marc, 2013/6/22 Marc Petit-Huguenin m...@petit-huguenin.org: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/22/2013 03:47 AM, Bálint Réczey wrote: Hi All, 2013/6/21 Marc Petit-Huguenin m...@petit-huguenin.org: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/20/2013 04:52 PM, Guy Harris wrote: On Jun 20, 2013, at 2:58 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin m...@petit-huguenin.org wrote: On 06/20/2013 02:17 PM, Gerald Combs wrote: Advantates: - I'm not sure that an in-house equivalent (e.g. Gerrit plus a private repository) would be better than what Github offers. Yes, Gerrit is better than github: Presumably you mean Gerrit plus a private repository is better than github, as Gerrit, as far as I can tell, is just software that works with a Git repository. Yes, although managing repositories being what Gerrit do, Gerrit without a least one repository would be a very boring application. :-) I have started describing a Gerrit based workflow which IMO would fit to the project at http://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/Workflow . Please check it and share your opinion. Code is building and tests are passing on all platforms. (Tests automatically start when at least one Core Developer gives +1 or +2 to prevent overloading or cracking the build servers.) Why do not build and test all patchsets submitted? Is that a limitation of the build servers? Having Jenkins automatically verify your patchset is IMO one of the nice feature of Gerrit, and it will lower the workload of core devs if building and testing are done before they start looking at the patchset. Build can be triggered by patchset submissin, too, but it would require more build server resources. Usually not the first version of the changeset will be accepted especially from new contributors and this means more builds. My view is the opposite: New contributors patchsets will probably be rejected anyway (does not build, does not pass test, etc...), so having the system doing that lowers the burden on core developers, who they can focus on more high level problems. Note that Core Developers would not have to wait since they can give +1 for their own changesets. The other reason behind requiring a +1 from someone we trust is that otherwise it would be easy to prepare a changeset which does unspeakable things to the build servers which we don't want to happen. Without requiring +1 we would have to prepare build systems to cope with malicious commits. That is a good point (basically because of the halting problem). But builds are done in isolation (i.e a git clone is done each time), so apart using too much resources or never ending, there is no harm that can be done to the infrastructure. And there is a Jenkins plugin to abort a build if it is stuck. - -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Email: m...@petit-huguenin.org Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJRxdv/AAoJECnERZXWan7ET2kP/A76n/IkVVzc0E+6TXEtn9kw k43sJPp6MzaAXv+b1bEOQum4RISk0oy0BfU1b4/G7BX4Vz9OEdug59G1XhKwn3xl SYr+14ZvK0lGptwMqHR+txgeIaSrdC5t4qWTYWri0f04BTncTQliDgEZT8GgGv/X 3edUHBxpAizGqzK6n3StrT/Rhyph58iUgrPJjBgVKddOZtTwD8UqoZ2BQ3wiRFBG rb2rlWiR8Gf+dQVAgFm225MvqmXZiarE/3Ar9V6lbPqZtURnmaUIKrbDt0WOku2u 0mWKxq8KWhTmwiFSYLfxqQQLiuOt8v3aYId7rluW86CFo2+c+Mb/In5RfOY3hQva A8GcGSGAzwEYYFtRg+cU9Fzp1+wJK0rdkSwMIhC05b5swbwtqE66FXYpfE7UsmCi LpxPlsFInFGKTa/8sliz0UkCrMQs/ucv+Wi86qxLP5fNbTDJfSw+Cq6DEiNgq1t+ Z0Z90ruBiPGzU46geLA7zVIDj9cfDz6G8NHCSzEp9YaeTPMO3WumVZi9A3NLfRXr Oi3/ay1SZadqNifEykoR6PMNT6Mx16Yh6kEKGhUuEygW/soOZLEFewaoRRGd2iFa nLBQIdfV1nUnswz4eeQurpwUePbuBjs6IqTtGuJShMEtAIKRIldydxrnHtstazPu CWt06knC865bbY6iz35l =YQf9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wireshark-dev] How to customized FT_ABSOLUTE_TIME
thanks Evan for your suggestion. I solved with custom decode function. I used abs_time_secs_to_str (value, ABSOLUTE_TIME_LOCAL, TRUE) function where value is the uint32 seconds value. Fabio. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wireshark-dev] Timeline
Does Wireshark have a Timeline permits to display graphical packets history ? Fabio. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wireshark-dev] Timeline
On Jun 22, 2013, at 11:08 AM, Fabio Tarabelloni fabio.tarabell...@reloc.it wrote: Does Wireshark have a Timeline permits to display graphical packets history ? What do you mean by history here? There's the I/O Graph function, but it might not do what you're asking for. What sort of graphical display would the timeline be? ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wireshark-dev] [Wireshark-commits] buildbot failure in Wireshark (development) on Windows-7-x64
And here's another one that's weird. Gerald, can you reproduce running manually on the build bots? On 2013-06-22, at 5:33 PM, buildbot-no-re...@wireshark.org wrote: The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder Windows-7-x64 while building Wireshark (development). Full details are available at: http://buildbot.wireshark.org/trunk/builders/Windows-7-x64/builds/5956 Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.wireshark.org/trunk/ Buildslave for this Build: windows-7-x64 Build Reason: scheduler Build Source Stamp: 50116 Blamelist: eapache BUILD FAILED: failed test.sh sincerely, -The Buildbot ___ Sent via:Wireshark-commits mailing list wireshark-comm...@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-commits Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-commits mailto:wireshark-commits-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
