Wireshark-bugs: [Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 5581] Support for additional fields in "Meta" protocol.
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 08:51:32 -0800 (PST)

Jeff Morriss <[email protected]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |[email protected]
         Resolution|                            |FIXED

--- Comment #7 from Jeff Morriss <[email protected]> 2011-01-18 08:51:31 PST ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > (In reply to comment #4)
> > > No opinion of a core developer Wireshark?
> > 
> > This patch was made in the style of the existing code. Whatever you think of
> > the style (coding, indentation, etc), that is The Right Thing(sm). Consistency
> > trumps cleanup.
> > If cleanup is to be done, it has to go in its own patch.
> > 
> Ok (I not found information about this in README.developer Guide)

I'm not sure I completely agree.  My preference would be to go with add_item()
(even if it's not consistent), but I also would not reject a patch because the
developer chose consistency.

Configure bugmail: https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.