[Alexis La Goutte <alexis.lagoutte@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Evan Huus <eapache@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Jeff Morriss <jeff.morriss.ws@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I saw some emails about the -commits emails still being a work in progress
> but that was a while ago.  Is that still the case?
>
> I just thought I'd mention that I'm not a fan of the current mails where we
> only get the one line summary of the change: I'd (much) prefer to have the
> full text of the commit message.

And as of this morning (or perhaps slightly earlier) I've stopped
receiving them at all...?

Yes, i confirm too...
 

You can ask Gerrit (in your user preferences) to send you notification
whenever a patchset is submitted; I'm not sure what those emails look
like but they might be more useful.

> For example I'd rather see this:
>
>>     Fix Bug 9725 'Lua: ProtoField.new() is buggy'
>>
>>     Using ProtoField.new() is dicey.  Many of the optional arguments don't
>> properly check the lua stack - they call lua_isnil() for their index number,
>> instead of lua_gettop() to see the stack size.  lua_isnil() may return false
>> in such cases.
>
>
> Than:
>
>>       from  c391d74   Fix wslua docs script to handle module names with
>> digits, like Int64/UInt64
>>       adds  2466a7c   Fix Bug 9725 'Lua: ProtoField.new() is buggy'
>
>
> I can learn a lot more (and better follow what others are
> discovering/working on) with the details in the former example.

+1

there is interresing to have the same info like :
https://code.wireshark.org/review/gitweb?p=wireshark.git;a=log;h=HEAD

For example :
Add test suite for Lua dissector-related functions
Hadriel Kaplan [Thu, 6 Feb 2014 09:14:11 +0100 (03:14 -0500)]
Add test suite for Lua dissector-related functions

This isn't super-fancy, but it runs a simple protocol dissector and verifies the tshark output
matches what it expects.  Things like Proto, ProtoField, Field, Tvb, TvbRange, etc., are used
in an example dissector script - it dissects DNS... partially.  Enough to make sure things
aren't fundamentally broken.  This provides something to add on top of later as well.

Change-Id: Icf3c8e9534944bcf4c4f6150f02a9a43f999cd75
Reviewed-on: https://code.wireshark.org/review/126
Reviewed-by: Alexis La Goutte <alexis.lagoutte@xxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Alexis La Goutte <alexis.lagoutte@xxxxxxxxx>

Regards,

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