Re: Backport request for proto_tree_add_subtree[_format]

[Peter Wu <peter () lekensteyn nl>]

On Thursday 10 July 2014 23:54:59 mmann78 () netscape net wrote:
> The proto_tree_add_subtree[_format] code refactoring was very intentionally
> post-1.12 and I don't see much point to just having the API there without
> it.  Further refactoring of specific dissectors like SSL and DTLS probably
> won't be backported either, but if it is breaking a proto_tree_add_subtree
> back into its original proto_tree_add_text + proto_item_add_subtree doesn't
> seem that hard to do.

Ok, it turns out that I did not need it. proto_tree_add_none_format needs a hf 
which proto_tree_add_text does not have. Is the plan to eventually replace 
these as well, or just leave it as-is?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Guy Harris <guy () alum mit edu>
[..]
> If the refactoring merely cleans up working code, producing code that
> doesn't appear different to the end user (old code dissects as well as new
> code, crashes no more than new code, etc.), it's probably not worth
> backporting it.
>
> If the refactoring fixes bugs, or makes it easier to fix existing bugs, that
> might make it worth backporting.

Reached the 3k changeset milestone!
https://code.wireshark.org/review/2999/
https://code.wireshark.org/review/3000/

The previous patch is needed for patch 3k to apply correctly. The last patch 
also fixes garbage in the display of Certificate in DTLS for the provided 
capture, but I guess that it can get even worse when a handshake message is 
fragmented.

Kind regards,
Peter
https://lekensteyn.nl

___________________________________________________________________________
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