Re: [Wireshark-dev] Backport request for proto_tree_add_subtree[_format]
On Thursday 10 July 2014 23:54:59 mman...@netscape.net wrote: > The proto_tree_add_subtree[_format] code refactoring was very intentionally > post-1.12 and I don't see much point to just having the API there without > it. Further refactoring of specific dissectors like SSL and DTLS probably > won't be backported either, but if it is breaking a proto_tree_add_subtree > back into its original proto_tree_add_text + proto_item_add_subtree doesn't > seem that hard to do. Ok, it turns out that I did not need it. proto_tree_add_none_format needs a hf which proto_tree_add_text does not have. Is the plan to eventually replace these as well, or just leave it as-is? > -Original Message- > From: Guy Harris [..] > If the refactoring merely cleans up working code, producing code that > doesn't appear different to the end user (old code dissects as well as new > code, crashes no more than new code, etc.), it's probably not worth > backporting it. > > If the refactoring fixes bugs, or makes it easier to fix existing bugs, that > might make it worth backporting. Reached the 3k changeset milestone! https://code.wireshark.org/review/2999/ https://code.wireshark.org/review/3000/ The previous patch is needed for patch 3k to apply correctly. The last patch also fixes garbage in the display of Certificate in DTLS for the provided capture, but I guess that it can get even worse when a handshake message is fragmented. Kind regards, Peter https://lekensteyn.nl ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 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] Backport request for proto_tree_add_subtree[_format]
The proto_tree_add_subtree[_format] code refactoring was very intentionally post-1.12 and I don't see much point to just having the API there without it. Further refactoring of specific dissectors like SSL and DTLS probably won't be backported either, but if it is breaking a proto_tree_add_subtree back into its original proto_tree_add_text + proto_item_add_subtree doesn't seem that hard to do. -Original Message- From: Guy Harris To: Developer support list for Wireshark Sent: Thu, Jul 10, 2014 6:50 pm Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Backport request for proto_tree_add_subtree[_format] On Jul 10, 2014, at 2:18 PM, Peter Wu wrote: > I would like to have the proto_tree_add_subtree and > proto_tree_add_subtree_format functions backported to master-1.12. Any > objects > to that? It is only a new addition to the API, so it should be pretty safe. > > It should make backporting changes easier. (read: backport a refactoring > (WIP) > to reduce code duplication in the SSL and DTLS dissectors.) If the refactoring merely cleans up working code, producing code that doesn't appear different to the end user (old code dissects as well as new code, crashes no more than new code, etc.), it's probably not worth backporting it. If the refactoring fixes bugs, or makes it easier to fix existing bugs, that might make it worth backporting. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 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 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] Backport request for proto_tree_add_subtree[_format]
On Jul 10, 2014, at 2:18 PM, Peter Wu wrote: > I would like to have the proto_tree_add_subtree and > proto_tree_add_subtree_format functions backported to master-1.12. Any > objects > to that? It is only a new addition to the API, so it should be pretty safe. > > It should make backporting changes easier. (read: backport a refactoring > (WIP) > to reduce code duplication in the SSL and DTLS dissectors.) If the refactoring merely cleans up working code, producing code that doesn't appear different to the end user (old code dissects as well as new code, crashes no more than new code, etc.), it's probably not worth backporting it. If the refactoring fixes bugs, or makes it easier to fix existing bugs, that might make it worth backporting. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 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] Backport request for proto_tree_add_subtree[_format]
On 7/10/2014 5:32 PM, Pascal Quantin wrote: Le 10 juil. 2014 23:19, "Peter Wu" mailto:pe...@lekensteyn.nl>> a écrit : > > Hi all, > > I would like to have the proto_tree_add_subtree and > proto_tree_add_subtree_format functions backported to master-1.12. Any objects > to that? It is only a new addition to the API, so it should be pretty safe. > > It should make backporting changes easier. (read: backport a refactoring (WIP) > to reduce code duplication in the SSL and DTLS dissectors.) > IMHO we have already waited too long to freeze 1.12 content and while those code refactoring are nice to have, they do not seem mandatory for the new stable branch. We should only apply bugfixes from now and publish a new RC followed shortly by the final 1.12.0 release. If there are blocker bugs, we should identify them ASAP. Just my 2 cents, Pascal. +1 Bill ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 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] Backport request for proto_tree_add_subtree[_format]
Le 10 juil. 2014 23:19, "Peter Wu" a écrit : > > Hi all, > > I would like to have the proto_tree_add_subtree and > proto_tree_add_subtree_format functions backported to master-1.12. Any objects > to that? It is only a new addition to the API, so it should be pretty safe. > > It should make backporting changes easier. (read: backport a refactoring (WIP) > to reduce code duplication in the SSL and DTLS dissectors.) > IMHO we have already waited too long to freeze 1.12 content and while those code refactoring are nice to have, they do not seem mandatory for the new stable branch. We should only apply bugfixes from now and publish a new RC followed shortly by the final 1.12.0 release. If there are blocker bugs, we should identify them ASAP. Just my 2 cents, Pascal. ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 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] Backport request for proto_tree_add_subtree[_format]
Hi all, I would like to have the proto_tree_add_subtree and proto_tree_add_subtree_format functions backported to master-1.12. Any objects to that? It is only a new addition to the API, so it should be pretty safe. It should make backporting changes easier. (read: backport a refactoring (WIP) to reduce code duplication in the SSL and DTLS dissectors.) Kind regards, Peter https://lekensteyn.nl ___ Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
