On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Bill Meier <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1/28/2013 2:58 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> Log: >> Re-implemention of checkhf.pl: >> Main objective: reduce the number of false positives. >> Normal usage: the same as for checkhf.pl. >> >> For now: named checkhf-v2.pl >> > > I've just committed a re-implementation of checkhf.pl and named it > checkhf-v2.pl. > > I'm not really sure how to handle this type of situation: > > 1. Retire (delete) checkhf.pl and then commit new version > with the same name. (It is a new program). > (More or less completely hides the original; It's obviously > still in the repository if you know how to find it). > > 2. Just commit the new version as a diff from the previous > (essentially removing almost all the lines of the old and > adding the new). (Keeps the history). > > 3. Give the re-implementation a different name. > Keep the old in the repository. > > Maybe #2 is the way to go.... > > Thoughts ? > > Bill
I'm perfectly happy with #2. The new script looks very nice. Tangentially, CppCheck [1] has support for custom checks using plugins. I've never had time to investigate properly, but I suspect that implementing the three check scripts (checkhf, checkAPIs, checkfiltername) as CppCheck plugins would be a major win, primarily because we'd get real C grammar parsing for free. Cheers, Evan [1] http://cppcheck.sourceforge.net/ ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
