Re: [Wireshark-dev] Release lifetime and version number changes?

[Uli Heilmeier]

+1 for having only two supported stable versions.
One as a „long term support“ branch (e.g. 2.6 at the moment)
and one „normal“ stable (eg. 3.0 atm or next 3.2)

+1 for keeping odd minor numbers for development versions.
Maybe having a monthly rolling release with latests features to have more test 
users would make sense.

Cheers
Uli

> Am 12.04.2019 um 01:54 schrieb Gerald Combs :
> 
> We currently have three active release branches: 3.0, 2.6, and 2.4. This is 
> because we support each release branch for a set amount of time (typically 24 
> months after the initial .0 release) and our last three .0 releases were less 
> than 12 months apart. However, having many active branches can sometimes 
> cause confusion[1] and far fewer people download the "Old Old Stable" release 
> than the "Old Stable" or "Stable" releases. Would it make sense to have only 
> two release branches active at any given time, e.g. by adjusting our release 
> branch lifetimes to "24 months or whenever we have two newer active branches, 
> whichever comes first"?
> 
> We've also been using odd minor numbers for development releases and even 
> minor numbers for stable releases[2] for many years now. We don't make very 
> many development releases and instead tend to have one or more release 
> candidates after branch is created. Would it make sense to drop the even/odd 
> scheme and make the next major release 3.1.0?
> 
> [1] 
> https://ask.wireshark.org/question/8433/why-are-multiple-versions-released-at-once/
> [2] https://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/ReleaseNumbers
> ___
> 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

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Release lifetime and version number changes?

[Ross Jacobs]

@Jaap Every build is released to the public like 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, etc.
Current stable is 3.7 and development version is 3.8. Based on the docs (
https://docs.python.org/3.8/), the dev branch is alpha stage as it version
3.8.0a3. Once it becomes stable, 3.9 will become the developing version.

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 10:19 PM Jaap Keuter  wrote:

> Does Python release *every* build to the general public, as Wireshark
> does? If so, how are these identified? I could only find specific defined
> releases, starting from Alpha so-and-so.
>
> On 12 Apr 2019, at 12:51, Ross Jacobs  wrote:
>
> I agree that even/odd is non-standard and confusing.
>
>
> > I’m not sure. How would we label the development branch? It’s currently
> 3.1.0 or is it 3.1.0rc0? (Version 3.1.0 (v3.1.0rc0-521-gdba02458)) would
> people understand?
>
> > But I’m ok  either way.
>
> I think the Python developer guide  
> does
> this well:
>
>
> 3.1.0TN :
> * T = [a, b, rc] (alpha, beta, release candidate)
> * N = release number
>
> When development would be released, remove TN for release and increment
> the MINOR for development branch.
>
> Cheers,
> Ross
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 8:30 AM Anders Broman 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Wireshark-dev  *On Behalf
>> Of *graham.shanks via Wireshark-dev
>> *Sent:* den 12 april 2019 09:04
>> *To:* Developer support list for Wireshark 
>> *Cc:* graham.shanks 
>> *Subject:* Re: [Wireshark-dev] Release lifetime and version number
>> changes?
>>
>>
>>
>> >I think dropping the even/odd scheme is a good  idea.
>>
>> I’m not sure. How would we label the development branch? It’s currently
>> 3.1.0 or is it 3.1.0rc0? (Version 3.1.0 (v3.1.0rc0-521-gdba02458)) would
>> people understand?
>>
>> But I’m ok  either way.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Personally I'd go down to 2 active branches but then my group wouldn't
>> be adversely affected by  dropping the "old old stable" version since we
>> invariably use the stable version. More weight should be given to the
>> opinions of people who do >use old stable versions. I would point out
>> that the proposed change gives no firm guarantee on the supported lifetime
>> of a branch at all. Could it be as short as two months? Potentially,
>> since there would be nothing to stop us releasing a branch >a month
>> (unlikely,  but from the user's perspective they would have no control over
>> that)
>>
>>
>>
>> For me 2 active branches sounds good. We use the development branch any
>> way with our own ID marking.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Anders
>>
>>
>>
>
> ___
> 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

[Wireshark-dev] Not seeing FOO Dissector in wireshark after successful build

[Abhisek Techie]

Hi,

I am trying to  add FOO dissector as plugin  to wireshark .I am following
https://www.wireshark.org/docs/wsdg_html_chunked/ChDissectAdd.html link.
But not seeing the dissector in wireshark after successful build in my
Ubuntu 18.04.2 LTS OS.

Below are the steps I performed -
1.Created packet-foo.c - Dissector source. under /plugin/epan/foo
2.Created CMakeLists.txt  under /plugin/epan/foo
3.Added CMakeListsCustom.txt  set(CUSTOM_PLUGIN_SRC_DIR plugins/epan/foo)
4.Built  the changes and could see *foo.so* getting generated in build
folder
cmake -G Ninja ../wireshark
ninja
5. Ran wireshark with *sudo* command , as I was not able to capture any
traffic using non-root user
sudo WIRESHARK_RUN_FROM_BUILD_DIRECTORY=1 ./run/wireshark
6.Generated traffic on port 1234 using python code
7. But don't see the protocol name as *FOO* in the packet list pane , it
still shows *UDP* as the protocol .

Any suggestions  on what I am missing?

Regards,
Abhisek
___
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