Re: Why are authors never Cc'ed before their code is changed?

[Stephen Fisher <stephenfisher-wireshark () outlook com>]

> From: laforge () gnumonks org
> 1) Is this the way how the wireshark development model / flow is
>    supposed to work ?

Yes.  The Wireshark model is that people submit patchs and then the Wireshark core developers become the ongoing 
maintainers.  This seems to have been necessary for a long time because people have time to submit patches to make 
improvments, but not always continue maintaining their code over the years.
 
> 2) If yes, do you really think that the gain in flexibilty caused by
>     this anarchy overweighs the benefit of having dissector-authors give
>     timely feedback to proposed changes, or prevent breakage?

The break of functionality you described is a separate problem.  Dissector functionality should not be broken 
regardless of who is making the changes - original author or not.  Of course, mistakes do happen.  The best way to 
prevent this is probably to have sample captures on the wiki for each protocol or attached to bug updates to test the 
changes/existing functionality.

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