On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 02:22:37PM -0400, James Carlson wrote: > Nicolas Williams writes: > > No, they get to contribute Wireshark support. It's the existing > > functionality in snoop but not in Wireshark that we'd be saying "oh > > well" about. > > Unless we mark snoop as "obsolete" (as I previously suggested), we > really have no good grounds for directing new projects one way or the > other. I don't see that we have a good committed direction at all.
But that was part of what I was saying: EOF snoop. And you proposed that some ARC member step up, de-rail and TCR the EOF of snoop. You are an ARC member who could do just that ;) And that might not even be necessary if the i-team just agrees to add the EOF of snoop to their materials before you derail. > > But the flip side is holding the system hostage to funding that may > > never show up. Wireshark is *far* superior to snoop, so not including > > Wireshark if noone will commit to making it a strict superset of snoop > > would also be less than "building a system." > > At least by this proposal, it seems can't even get our act together > enough to nuke snoop away. We can't? As long as we agree that this case shouldn't have to include adding functionality to Wireshark that is currently only available in snoop then I think it should be near trivial to "get our act together to nuke snoop." Or am I missing something? Nico --
