Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Dissector field name changes (was Re:review_for_checkin requ
From: "Maynard, Chris" <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:46:54 -0400
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
[email protected]
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev





-----------------------------------------
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the
sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, retention,
distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the
recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all
copies of this message. Also, email is susceptible to data
corruption, interception, tampering, unauthorized amendment and
viruses. We only send and receive emails on the basis that we are
not liable for any such corruption, interception, tampering,
amendment or viruses or any consequence thereof.

<<winmail.dat>>