Hi,
After checking a few BUGS I see a problem with this like with bug
"packet-bssap.c display filter field problems"
- { "Message Type", "bsap.pdu_type",
+ { "Message Type", "bssap.bsap.pdu_type",
(more changes like this)
Formally the change is correct but this is a bsap PDU so
I think it's good enough like it is(comments).
(packet-bssap.c does BSAP BSSAP and BSSAP+(bssap_plus.))
But most of the patches are probably OK. But if Chris
Makes a BUG report per set of dissectors that means
either checking it all in blindly or go through all of it
and then manually do the changes on the other hand a BUG report
for every dissector we have is not appealing either.
Regards
Anders
________________________________________
Från: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Maynard, Chris
Skickat: den 23 augusti 2007 22:47
Till: Developer support list for Wireshark
Ämne: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Dissector field name changes
(wasRe:review_for_checkin requested: [Bug 1789] packet-c*.cdisplay filter
fieldproblems)
Obviously my preference would be to change them, but I'll let you experts
decide that, I guess. That's what I thought Guy indicated in his first
response, so that's why I got started, but if you want to think about it
some more than I'm in no hurry.
> I think, however, that before you spend too much more time on this,
> somebody ought to review what you've done so far to check that we're all
> on the same page with respect to what are good changes. It would be a
> shame if you spent weeks on it and we had to say "uh, no, you've got the
> wrong idea."
Yes, please do. In fact, I don't have any more time to spend on this today
anyway, so I'll wait for some feedback first before continuing. Most
likely, assuming you guys say to forge ahead, I'll try to work on one
packet-letter a day or so, and next time I submit the patch, I'll try to do
so as a single uncompressed diff file to hopefully make it easier for
everyone.
- Chris
________________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Jeff Morriss
Sent: Thu 8/23/2007 4:37 PM
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Dissector field name changes (was
Re:review_for_checkin requested: [Bug 1789] packet-c*.c display filter
fieldproblems)
Richard van der Hoff wrote:
> Richard van der Hoff wrote:
>> I think, however, that before you spend too much more time on this,
>> somebody ought to review what you've done so far to check that we're all
>> on the same page with respect to what are good changes. It would be a
>> shame if you spent weeks on it and we had to say "uh, no, you've got the
>> wrong idea."
>
> Apart from anything else, if we go and change half of the dissector
> fields, is that going to upset people who are used to the old names?
Maybe, but I'd say correctness is better (think of the new users over
the next N years who might find the field easier or find it more
intuitive). (I say that even though I haven't looked at what the actual
changes are...)
_______________________________________________
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
_______________________________________________
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
