Re: [Wireshark-dev] Review of Gerrit patch for RTPS

[Juan Jose Martin Carrascosa]

It makes sense. I will create a bug and attach a capture to it. Then I will
reference the bug from the Gerrit issue. That is the process right?

Thanks,
Juanjo Martin

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Dario Lombardo  wrote:

> I think that attaching some samples would help a lot.
>
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Juan Jose Martin Carrascosa <
> jua...@rti.com> wrote:
>
>> I assumed that you were busy. Thanks for the answer.
>>
>> Is there anything I can help with? I may be able to spend some hours this
>> weekend.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Juanjo Martin
>>
>> On Wednesday, November 18, 2015, Pascal Quantin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Juan,
>>>
>>> 2015-11-18 17:36 GMT+01:00 Juan Jose Martin Carrascosa :
>>>
 Hi everyone,

 It has been almost two weeks and I am surprised I still didn't have a
 review here. I am surprised because I always get reviews very early! (in
 the first 24h, which is awesome).

 https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/11602/

 I understand that everyone might be busy. I just want to make sure this
 is not missed since it is (in my opinion) a very cool feature for RTPS.

 Any volunteers? :)

>>>
>>> As you saw we are quite busy, and polishing Wireshark 2.0 is taking a
>>> good part or our bandwidth :)
>>> One of the interest of Gerrit is to ensure that patch sets do not get
>>> lost !
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Pascal.
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
>> Archives:https://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 
> Archives:https://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 
Archives:https://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] Review of Gerrit patch for RTPS

[Pascal Quantin]

2015-11-19 11:28 GMT+01:00 Juan Jose Martin Carrascosa :

> It makes sense. I will create a bug and attach a capture to it. Then I
> will reference the bug from the Gerrit issue. That is the process right?
>

yes exactly.


>
> Thanks,
> Juanjo Martin
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Dario Lombardo <
> dario.lombardo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think that attaching some samples would help a lot.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Juan Jose Martin Carrascosa <
>> jua...@rti.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I assumed that you were busy. Thanks for the answer.
>>>
>>> Is there anything I can help with? I may be able to spend some hours
>>> this weekend.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Juanjo Martin
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, November 18, 2015, Pascal Quantin <
>>> pascal.quan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Hi Juan,

 2015-11-18 17:36 GMT+01:00 Juan Jose Martin Carrascosa 
 :

> Hi everyone,
>
> It has been almost two weeks and I am surprised I still didn't have a
> review here. I am surprised because I always get reviews very early! (in
> the first 24h, which is awesome).
>
> https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/11602/
>
> I understand that everyone might be busy. I just want to make sure
> this is not missed since it is (in my opinion) a very cool feature for 
> RTPS.
>
> Any volunteers? :)
>

 As you saw we are quite busy, and polishing Wireshark 2.0 is taking a
 good part or our bandwidth :)
 One of the interest of Gerrit is to ensure that patch sets do not get
 lost !

 Regards,
 Pascal.

>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
>>> Archives:https://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 
>> Archives:https://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 
> Archives:https://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 
Archives:https://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] Release process: Transifex Sync

[Dario Lombardo]

>
>
> I agree with you. There is need to  sync with Transifex as one of
> latest step of releasing.
>

I was conviced that Alexis put the sync in place. Doesn't it work?

https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/201502/msg00162.html
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://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] Review of Gerrit patch for RTPS

[Dario Lombardo]

I think that attaching some samples would help a lot.

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Juan Jose Martin Carrascosa  wrote:

> I assumed that you were busy. Thanks for the answer.
>
> Is there anything I can help with? I may be able to spend some hours this
> weekend.
>
> Thanks,
> Juanjo Martin
>
> On Wednesday, November 18, 2015, Pascal Quantin 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Juan,
>>
>> 2015-11-18 17:36 GMT+01:00 Juan Jose Martin Carrascosa :
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> It has been almost two weeks and I am surprised I still didn't have a
>>> review here. I am surprised because I always get reviews very early! (in
>>> the first 24h, which is awesome).
>>>
>>> https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/11602/
>>>
>>> I understand that everyone might be busy. I just want to make sure this
>>> is not missed since it is (in my opinion) a very cool feature for RTPS.
>>>
>>> Any volunteers? :)
>>>
>>
>> As you saw we are quite busy, and polishing Wireshark 2.0 is taking a
>> good part or our bandwidth :)
>> One of the interest of Gerrit is to ensure that patch sets do not get
>> lost !
>>
>> Regards,
>> Pascal.
>>
>
> ___
> Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
> Archives:https://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 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

[Wireshark-dev] Release process: Transifex Sync

[Uli Heilmeier]

Hi,

First of all a huge Thank you to all the developers for a gorgeous 2.0.0 
release!

I saw that the language files haven't been updated before building 2.0.0.
Therefore the latest translations like 'Next Packet in Conversation' and my 
fixes for the keyboard shortcuts in the German translation are missing.

Wouldn't it make sense to have a Transifex sync step in the release process?

Any opinions or doubts?

Cheers 
Uli
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://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] Release process: Transifex Sync

[Michal Labedzki]

On 19 November 2015 at 09:22, Uli Heilmeier  wrote:
> that the language files haven't been updated before building 2.0.0.
> Therefore the latest translations like 'Next Packet in Conversation' and my 
> fixes for the keyboard shortcuts in the German translation are missing.
>
> Wouldn't it make sense to have a Transifex sync step in the release process?
>
> Any opinions or doubts?

I agree with you. There is need to  sync with Transifex as one of
latest step of releasing.

I think there is also a need to create small time-window for
translators to finish translation before release. Code in this phase
should be frozen. Let me think... one week or two should be enough.
(also announcement for translators should be created [twitter,
maillists, etc.])


-- 

Pozdrawiam / Best regards
-
Michał Łabędzki, Software Engineer
Tieto Corporation

Product Development Services

http://www.tieto.com / http://www.tieto.pl
---
ASCII: Michal Labedzki
location: Swobodna 1 Street, 50-088 Wrocław, Poland
room: 5.01 (desk next to 5.08)
---
Please note: The information contained in this message may be legally
privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any unauthorised use, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to
the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank You.
---
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
---
Tieto Poland spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością z siedzibą w
Szczecinie, ul. Malczewskiego 26. Zarejestrowana w Sądzie Rejonowym
Szczecin-Centrum w Szczecinie, XIII Wydział Gospodarczy Krajowego
Rejestru Sądowego pod numerem 124858. NIP: 8542085557. REGON:
812023656. Kapitał zakładowy: 4 271500 PLN
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://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] Release process: Transifex Sync

[Alexis La Goutte]

Hi,

There is sync every week (With other stuff like manuf...)

I have ask the release manager to also sync translation before a release...
(but look missing for 2.0.0)

Yes, we need also work on "process" for update translation.. (like frozen,
mailing...)

Regards,

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Dario Lombardo  wrote:

>
>> I agree with you. There is need to  sync with Transifex as one of
>> latest step of releasing.
>>
>
> I was conviced that Alexis put the sync in place. Doesn't it work?
>
> https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/201502/msg00162.html
>
> ___
> Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
> Archives:https://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 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

[Wireshark-dev] Is it better to have dissected and lost than never to have dissected at all?

[Michael Mann]

This question has probably been asked before, so I thought I'd at least put a 
Tennyson twist on it.

I started getting more serious about converting dissectors to the "new style".  
I submitted a bunch of patches where it was obvious that the dissectors fell 
into the "give me everything" category.  My biggest worry is the comment made 
by Guy in bug 11134 
(https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11134#c13), that some 
dissectors want to "accept" a tvb (packet) as their own, but don't actually 
parse any bytes (so it appears that they would "return 0" with the new style).  
So the remaining ones I'm taking more slowly (with the attitude of unsure means 
leave as old style) and if anyone know of protocols that behave this way, feel 
free to convert them (or send me a note)

The case I keep coming across that I'm not sure how to deal with is dissectors 
that get a few bytes in (and have already created trees/items for a few 
fields), and then decide they aren't going to dissect anymore because of a 
"bad" field value (most commonly "version" or "length").  Should we apply a 
consistent rule for this?  Like if you're not going to dissect "versions" you 
don't support, check before making trees and just not bother with expert info 
saying "version isn't supported" while ceasing dissection.  Or dissect as 
"latest version" (or at least "a" version), but with the expert info applied 
that the version is unknown.  I'm not sure which scenario users would 
appreciate more, but I'd like to see it applied as consistently as possible. I 
believe my preference is for using expert info, but continuing dissection.
Are such rules more critical for popular protocols like Ethernet, IP and 
TCP/UDP where there are possibly "shared" values for a subdissector identifier?

Also, should we clean up a tree if a new-style dissector returns 0 (within the 
functions in epan/packet.c)?  I think the expert info would be harder to clean 
up, but I'm also not sure of the difficult of the trees either.

Opinions welcome, but I'd like to see the "new" style be the "only" style by 
the 2.2 release.
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

[Wireshark-dev] Buildbots

[Dario Lombardo]

I've found 2 different buildbot projects for wireshark

https://buildbot.wireshark.org/petri-dish/

and

https://buildbot.wireshark.org/wireshark-master/

Can anyone explain me the difference? I've understood that petri-dish is
manually triggered by core-devs from gerrit. Who triggers the
wireshark-master?
Sorry if it's a stupid question, but I like to understand all the code
audit tools that run around wireshark.
Thanks.
Dario.
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://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] Buildbots

[Evan Huus]

As you said, petri-dish is triggered by core devs for unmerged gerrit
changes to test them before merging. Master is triggered on every merge to
build the actual git master branch.

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Dario Lombardo <
dario.lombardo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've found 2 different buildbot projects for wireshark
>
> https://buildbot.wireshark.org/petri-dish/
>
> and
>
> https://buildbot.wireshark.org/wireshark-master/
>
> Can anyone explain me the difference? I've understood that petri-dish is
> manually triggered by core-devs from gerrit. Who triggers the
> wireshark-master?
> Sorry if it's a stupid question, but I like to understand all the code
> audit tools that run around wireshark.
> Thanks.
> Dario.
>
> ___
> Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
> Archives:https://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 
Archives:https://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] Buildbots

[Graham Bloice]

There's also the:

2.0 buildbot - https://buildbot.wireshark.org/wireshark-2.0/waterfall
1.12 buildbot - https://buildbot.wireshark.org/wireshark-1.12/waterfall
Debian LTS buildbot - https://buildbot.wireshark.org/wireshark-lts/waterfall

These are all listed on the develop page -
https://www.wireshark.org/develop.html#buildbot

I believe they are automatically triggered on commits to the respective
branches.



On 19 November 2015 at 16:48, Evan Huus  wrote:

> As you said, petri-dish is triggered by core devs for unmerged gerrit
> changes to test them before merging. Master is triggered on every merge to
> build the actual git master branch.
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Dario Lombardo <
> dario.lombardo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've found 2 different buildbot projects for wireshark
>>
>> https://buildbot.wireshark.org/petri-dish/
>>
>> and
>>
>> https://buildbot.wireshark.org/wireshark-master/
>>
>> Can anyone explain me the difference? I've understood that petri-dish is
>> manually triggered by core-devs from gerrit. Who triggers the
>> wireshark-master?
>> Sorry if it's a stupid question, but I like to understand all the code
>> audit tools that run around wireshark.
>> Thanks.
>> Dario.
>>
>

-- 
Graham Bloice
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe