Re: [Bro-Dev] How to deal with stale branches?

Yeah, that's certainly one option, but I think it'd be hard for people to find. On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 8:15 PM, Jon Siwek wrote: > > > On 4/26/18 11:06 AM, Vlad Grigorescu wrote: > > I'm torn between deleting the branches, in an effort to not clog up git >> with unneeded

Re: [Bro-Dev] Final Broker branch testing

On 4/26/18 4:30 PM, Johanna Amann wrote: > It might be. I am honestly not sure - I suspect that this still will > mean that some places might not be able to easily use Bro > anymore--adding external package sources does not seem to be a viable > option everywhere. They could still build

Re: [Bro-Dev] Final Broker branch testing

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 14:30 -0700, you wrote: > It might be. I am honestly not sure - I suspect that this still will > mean that some places might not be able to easily use Bro > anymore--adding external package sources does not seem to be a viable > option everywhere. Is it a feasible

Re: [Bro-Dev] set and vector operators

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 09:29:24AM -0700, Vern Paxson wrote: > > Just one more thing still: I'm actually feeling pretty strongly > > against having multiple different operators for the same operation > > (set union, set addition/removal). > > I'm fine with removing "add" and "delete" for sets!

Re: [Bro-Dev] set and vector operators

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 01:43:53PM -0700, Vern Paxson wrote: > > A nice thing about "add" and "delete" for sets is that you can infer the > > I do also notice that you had "s + e" in the proposal and not "v + e". > > Isn't that weird by the same logic or is it just an accidental omission? > >

Re: [Bro-Dev] pattern values and "||"/"&&" operators

> > p1 || p2returns a pattern that matches either p1 or p2 > > ... Though having the > functionality of the former available in some form would be kind of > nice-I have a few scripts where I would have used that. Oh I left out that that's in fact supported: print /foo/ |

Re: [Bro-Dev] pattern values and "||"/"&&" operators

On 26 Apr 2018, at 14:04, Vern Paxson wrote: > In implementing bitwise operations for counts (now pretty much done!), > I found that Bro's internals actually support "||" and "&&" operators > for > patterns: > > p1 || p2returns a pattern that matches either p1 or p2 > p1 &&

Re: [Bro-Dev] set and vector operators

On 4/26/18 3:43 PM, Vern Paxson wrote: >> E.g. say you come back to some code after a few months and see "foo += >> 1". Not obvious what 'foo' is anymore. > > I don't think it's reasonable to have the bar be "can you tell what's going > on in isolation". It should include consideration of

Re: [Bro-Dev] Final Broker branch testing

On 26 Apr 2018, at 14:05, Jon Siwek wrote: > On 4/26/18 2:04 PM, Johanna Amann wrote: > >> With this change, we Bro cannot be compiled out of the Box on >> RedHat/Centos 7 anymore. Since that is the latest release of RedHat >> and probably used in production by quite a few people a

Re: [Bro-Dev] Final Broker branch testing

On 4/26/18 2:04 PM, Johanna Amann wrote: > With this change, we Bro cannot be compiled out of the Box on > RedHat/Centos 7 anymore. Since that is the latest release of RedHat and > probably used in production by quite a few people a potentially > significant amount of people might not be

[Bro-Dev] pattern values and "||"/"&&" operators

In implementing bitwise operations for counts (now pretty much done!), I found that Bro's internals actually support "||" and "&&" operators for patterns: p1 || p2returns a pattern that matches either p1 or p2 p1 && p2returns a pattern that matches p1 followed by

Re: [Bro-Dev] Final Broker branch testing

> > Trying this I noticed a few things (ordered by urgency from my point of > view). > > With this change, we Bro cannot be compiled out of the Box on > RedHat/Centos 7 anymore. Since that is the latest release of RedHat and > probably used in production by quite a few people a potentially >

Re: [Bro-Dev] set and vector operators

> A nice thing about "add" and "delete" for sets is that you can infer the > data type that you're operating on just looking at the local code/line. Only sort of. For delete, you don't know whether it's a table or a set, and for neither do you know what type of table/set if you can't

Re: [Bro-Dev] Final Broker branch testing

> On Apr 26, 2018, at 11:16 AM, Jon Siwek wrote: > > The latest version of the new Broker-ized cluster/communication system > for Bro in 'topic/actor-system' branch is wrapping up and, in my > opinion, ready to be merged into Bro's 'master' branch. > [..] > > Though,

Re: [Bro-Dev] How to deal with stale branches?

On 4/26/18 11:06 AM, Vlad Grigorescu wrote: > I'm torn between deleting the branches, in an effort to not clog up git > with unneeded branches, and leaving them around or perhaps archiving > them somewhere, in order to not completely lose the work in case it's of > value to someone down the

Re: [Bro-Dev] set and vector operators

On 4/26/18 11:29 AM, Vern Paxson wrote: >> Just one more thing still: I'm actually feeling pretty strongly >> against having multiple different operators for the same operation >> (set union, set addition/removal). I'm maybe convincing myself that it's at least not that useful or there's

Re: [Bro-Dev] Final Broker branch testing

I noticed that Bro no longer builds on any version of RHEL/CentOS: CMake Error at aux/broker/CMakeLists.txt:4 (cmake_minimum_required): CMake 3.0.2 or higher is required. You are running version 2.8.12.2 Also, I observed

Re: [Bro-Dev] Final Broker branch testing

Trying this I noticed a few things (ordered by urgency from my point of view). With this change, we Bro cannot be compiled out of the Box on RedHat/Centos 7 anymore. Since that is the latest release of RedHat and probably used in production by quite a few people a potentially significant

Re: [Bro-Dev] set and vector operators

> Just one more thing still: I'm actually feeling pretty strongly > against having multiple different operators for the same operation > (set union, set addition/removal). I'm fine with removing "add" and "delete" for sets! (But seems we gotta keep them for a good while for backward

[Bro-Dev] How to deal with stale branches?

I have a couple of branches that, for whatever reason, aren't headed for a merge request into master. The branches were left around for reference, in case someone wanted to pick up and continue the work. However, this too now looks very unlikely, as some of these are several years old, and of

Re: [Bro-Dev] set and vector operators

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 22:19 -0700, you wrote: > Now there's no problem, since the lexer only recognizes "" > as a unit, with no whitespace allowed. Good idea, sounds right. And in case it did turn out to be problematic, we could still go the way of adding all as keywords later. > How does

[Bro-Dev] Final Broker branch testing

The latest version of the new Broker-ized cluster/communication system for Bro in 'topic/actor-system' branch is wrapping up and, in my opinion, ready to be merged into Bro's 'master' branch. However, since it's such a big change, I'd like a last round of feedback before merging. If you want

Re: [Bro-Dev] set and vector operators

On 4/26/18 12:19 AM, Vern Paxson wrote: > Hmmm thinking about it, we can get away with '&' with minimal keyword > conflict because there's such an easy (and natural-to-presume) fix - > namely, rather than "x" you use "x & attrkeyword". Now > there's no problem, since the lexer only recognizes