Re: The journey of a thousand miles...

[Graham Bloice <graham.bloice () trihedral com>]

On 21 September 2015 at 08:51, Pascal Quantin <pascal.quantin () gmail com>
wrote:

> Hi Michael,
>
> 2015-09-21 4:48 GMT+02:00 <mmann78 () netscape net>:
>
> > ... 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

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe