Re: [Wireshark-dev] Building Wireshark 3.4.0 documentation on Windows

2020-11-01 Thread Gerald Combs 
On 11/1/20 2:29 PM, Graham Bloice wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 at 18:42, Maynard, Chris via Wireshark-dev 
> mailto:wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>> wrote:
> 
> Section 2.2.8 of the Wireshark Developer’s Guide[1] instructs you to 
> install asciidoctor, xsltproc and docbook if you want to build the Wireshark 
> documentation; however, it doesn’t specify the minimum version requirements 
> of those tools.
>  
> Attempting to build the documentation for the new 3.4.0 release failed on 
> my system.  Running "choco list --localonly" showed that I had these relevant 
> package versions installed:
>  
> asciidoctorj 2.1.0
> docbook-bundle 1.0.0
> xsltproc 1.1.28.0
>  
> … and running "choco outdated" revealed that asciidoctor was outdated:
>  
> Chocolatey v0.10.15
> Outdated Packages
> Output is package name | current version | available version | pinned?
>  
> asciidoctorj|2.1.0|2.3.0|false
>  
> I updated the asciidoctor package to version 2.3.0 and was able to 
> successfully build the documentation.  (NOTE: I actually ran "choco upgrade 
> all" to upgrade all packages.)  In any case, if building the documentation 
> fails for you, you may want to check your installed versions and upgrade to 
> the latest available packages if any are outdated.
>  
> And perhaps the Developer’s Guide should mention minimum required 
> versions, if possible?
> 
> 
> I'm not sure about doing this, it's a never ending chase.
> 
> I do agree that the CMake generation step could check minimum requirements.

It does:

find_package( Asciidoctor 1.5 )

1.5.0 (released in 2014) and later support the "modern" syntax described at 
https://asciidoctor.org/docs/migration/), which is what we currently use in our 
documentation. I can successfully build the user_guides, developer_guides, and 
release_notes targets here on an Ubuntu system with AsciiDoctor 1.5.5 
installed. Chris, do you remember what error(s) you ran into with AsciiDoctorJ 
2.1.0?
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Building Wireshark 3.4.0 documentation on Windows

2020-11-01 Thread Graham Bloice 
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 at 18:42, Maynard, Chris via Wireshark-dev <
wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> wrote:

> Section 2.2.8 of the Wireshark Developer’s Guide[1] instructs you to
> install asciidoctor, xsltproc and docbook if you want to build the
> Wireshark documentation; however, it doesn’t specify the minimum version
> requirements of those tools.
>
> Attempting to build the documentation for the new 3.4.0 release failed on
> my system.  Running "choco list --localonly" showed that I had these
> relevant package versions installed:
>
> asciidoctorj 2.1.0
> docbook-bundle 1.0.0
> xsltproc 1.1.28.0
>
> … and running "choco outdated" revealed that asciidoctor was outdated:
>
> Chocolatey v0.10.15
> Outdated Packages
> Output is package name | current version | available version | pinned?
>
> asciidoctorj|2.1.0|2.3.0|false
>
> I updated the asciidoctor package to version 2.3.0 and was able to
> successfully build the documentation.  (NOTE: I actually ran "choco
> upgrade all" to upgrade all packages.)  In any case, if building the
> documentation fails for you, you may want to check your installed versions
> and upgrade to the latest available packages if any are outdated.
>
> And perhaps the Developer’s Guide should mention minimum required
> versions, if possible?
>

I'm not sure about doing this, it's a never ending chase.

I do agree that the CMake generation step could check minimum requirements.



> - Chris
> [1]: *https://www.wireshark.org/docs/wsdg_html_chunked/ChSetupWin32.html*
> 
>
>
>
-- 
Graham Bloice
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Managing Gitlab Issues

2020-11-01 Thread Uli Heilmeier 
Yes, currently normal users have no right to add labels to own created issues.
The FeatureRequest template includes a label. However it is not added when a 
user creates an issue due to the missing rights.

We should:
* give users the right to add labels to their own issues
* give (all or at least regular) contributors the rights
   - to add labels to issues
   - to assign issues to themselves
* create another template for Website issues (I will push a MR for this)

Furthermore I still believe we need some status labels to have a better 
overview of all open issues.

Cheers
Uli

> Am 31.10.2020 um 17:47 schrieb chuck c :
> 
> 
> Public (non-core ?) users do not have access to add labels to an issue.
> Can a template add labels when the issue is created?
> Can there be a template for website corrections/updates?
> 
> https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/201809/msg00090.html
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 6:08 AM Uli Heilmeier  wrote:
>> 
>> > I'm sorry I was unclear. I’m talking about the Status field of Bugzilla. 
>> > Not Gerrit labels. With Bugzilla a new bug had
>> > (normally) the status ‚Unconfirmed‘ at the beginning. When someone was 
>> > able to reproduce the issue the bug had the
>> > status ‚Confirmed‘. If something was missing (a capture file for example) 
>> > the status was ‚Incomplete‘. When someone was
>> > working on a fix the status was ‚In Progress‘.
>> > This is currently missing with Gitlab Issues. There is only ‚Open‘ and 
>> > ‚Closed‘.
>> > 
>> > Therefore I suggest we use labels to mark the status of an issue.
>> > 
>> 
>> I still prefer to have some status labels. However as there is no feedback 
>> it's seems I'm the only one. :-(
>> 
>> > 
>> > With Bugzilla I (as a normal contributor) was able to set the status of a 
>> > bug (not limited to my own created ones). Also
>> > I was able to correct the classification etc. At the moment I’m not able 
>> > to do this with Gitlab issues. When we can have
>> > a new group to edit/label issues I’m totally fine. 
>> 
>> I'm also not able to add a existing label (enhancement) to an issue created 
>> by myself. So it seems there is some setting
>> denying this.
>> 
>> >> * It would make sense to have templates for issues [3]. Has anyone 
>> >> already prepared this? Otherwise I will create
>> >> one and submit a MR?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This would help for sure. Please submit a MR for that.
>> > 
>> > Will do so.
>> 
>> Templates for FeatureRequest and Bug are active.
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
>> Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
>> Unsubscribe: https://www.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://www.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://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe