Hi,
I've just seen those changes (filter names) now and I'm really not
happy with them ...
1) I explicitely asked this list for objections against the gmr1.xx vs
gmr1_xx name and I was told that using gmr1.xx made sense given it's
always the same protocol. And nobody expressed any view against
Hi all,
I understand that different FOSS projects have different cultures,
norms, rules, etc. However, my experience with wireshark it has reached
a point where I think a post like this is requierd.
I don't want to see this as some kind of flame, or to claim that the
wireshark development model
Le 19 août 2012 à 12:40, Sylvain Munaut 246...@gmail.com a écrit :
Hi,
I've just seen those changes (filter names) now and I'm really not
happy with them ...
1) I explicitely asked this list for objections against the gmr1.xx vs
gmr1_xx name and I was told that using gmr1.xx made sense
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Jakub Zawadzki
darkjames...@darkjames.pl wrote:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 08:54:54PM -0400, Evan Huus wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Jakub Zawadzki darkjames...@darkjames.pl
wrote:
From r43188 sequence of selecting new packet (cf_select_packet() in
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Harald Welte lafo...@gnumonks.org wrote:
Hi all,
I understand that different FOSS projects have different cultures,
norms, rules, etc. However, my experience with wireshark it has reached
a point where I think a post like this is requierd.
I don't want to
2012/8/19 Harald Welte lafo...@gnumonks.org
Hi all,
I understand that different FOSS projects have different cultures,
norms, rules, etc. However, my experience with wireshark it has reached
a point where I think a post like this is requierd.
I don't want to see this as some kind of
The XP-x86 buildbot has been failing sporadically for over a week now.
It seems to have started around revision 44359, but the actual cause
could be any number of revisions on either side (I don't have an XP
box to bisect with).
Anyone have an idea what's happening?
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:22
Hi Pascal,
If you check the mailing list archive you will see that I also raised
this issue regarding filter names for protocols split across several
files. See http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/201207/msg00258.html
for the mail exchange.
Yes, I've seen this (I replied in the same
Hi Pascal,
For me not all changes have the same potential of breakage: a change in an
API used by an external tool can easily lead to a complete incompatibility
(GSMTAP format unapproved changes for example) while a filter rename or a
wrong subtree used to display a field (GMR-1 breakages
Pascal Quantin pascal.quantin@... writes:
2012/8/19 Harald Welte lafo...@gnumonks.org
I agree that this massive filter rename could / should have been discussed
before being done
The changes that Michael is making regarding filter renaming stems from
Sylvain,
The checkdisplayfilter.pl script reflects my interpretation of the desired
display filter format, and since there hasn't been that much feedback on the
outputted results (with Pascal's comments on the GSM dissectors being the
exception), I continue to plod along manually checking
11 matches
Mail list logo
