Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] The journey of a thousand miles...
Date Index · Thread Index · Other Months · All Mailing Lists
Date Prev · Date Next · Thread Prev · Thread Next
From: Graham Bloice <graham.bloice@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 10:05:11 +0100


On 21 September 2015 at 08:51, Pascal Quantin <pascal.quantin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Michael,

2015-09-21 4:48 GMT+02:00 <mmann78@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
... begins with a single step - Lao Tzu
 
 
The thousand mile journey has been completed as all proto_tree_add_text calls within the Wireshark source have been converted to a "better" API.  Because they have been converted, I think proto_tree_add_text should be removed from the Wireshark API.  To me there has been enough notice given and 2.0 looks like a good place to make the clean break (I was worried the conversion wasn't going to be finished in time).  Since the mailing list has more eyes than Gerrit, I thought I'd send this notice in case there are objections, which can be handled here or in the patch that removes the API (https://code.wireshark.org/review/10594/).  I am personally not in favor of keeping it around just for third-party dissectors.
 
convert_proto_tree_add_text.pl will remain and I will gladly answer any questions people have (either email -dev or me directly).  The initial description of convert_proto_tree_add_text.pl can be found here: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/201307/msg00073.html.  There have been more "features" added since, but the process to follow hasn't changed - run it once to generate the list of proto_tree_add_text calls and its "best guess" at what the conversion should be and then a second pass over the tool's output to do search/replace of the proto_tree_add_text calls with the data provided.

Congratulations for this long task that you mostly managed yourself. This was very courageous :)
I fully agree with you: we should remove proto_tree_add_text before 2.0 lands, otherwise it might start polluting the dissectors again.

Cheers,
Pascal.

Well done Michael, I agree with Pascal, 2.0 is the right place to change this.

Do we need to create some sort of "Breaking changes" document?


--
Graham Bloice